Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Mykeljon picks another loser

A year has passed since Mykeljon Winckel inserted an article called 'An Unpalatable Truth' into the Franklin E Local, the free magazine he publishes from the south Auckland rural service town of Pukekohe.

With its claim that a coalition of historians, museum curators and Maori activists conspires to suppress the fact that Celtic people landed on New Zealand shores thousands of years ago and founded a great civilisation, 'An Unpalatable Truth' certainly stood in contrast to the Franklin E Local's usual fare of advertisements for fertilisers, reviews of new tractors, and reports on pig hunts. And Mykeljon seemed to believe that 'An Unpalatable Truth' represented a scoop of historic proportions, which would propel him into the journalistic limelight: at the end of his rambling article, he suggested that his findings would lead to major changes in contemporary New Zealand society, as the truth about the past undermined present political arrangements based upon biculturalism and the Treaty of Waitangi.

If 'An Unpalatable Truth' has not caused a sensation of Watergate-like proportions, it is perhaps because Mykeljon's 'Deep Throat' was Martin Doutre, a self-proclaimed 'astro-archaeologist' who has for more than a decade been furrowing the brows of Kiwis with his strange claims about both ancient history and contemporary events. After I published a critique of 'An Unpalatable Truth' in the Scoop Review of Books Doutre emerged in the comments boxes to acknowledge his part in producing the article, and to make a series of increasingly odd comments about Maori, Jews, the Holocaust, 9/11, and leprechauns.

Under interrogation from philosopher Matthew Dentith, archaeologist Edward Ashby, and the distinguished writer and scholar Keri Hulme, Doutre claimed that there was no evidence of Polynesians ever making long sea voyages, announced that the ancient Egyptians were a Celtic people, saluted David Irving as the 'leading expert' in the field of World War Two history, proclaimed the Holocaust a Jewish myth, denied that Osama bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and made a stream of other statements that called his sanity as well as his scholarship into question. It is not only at the Scoop Review of Books that Doutre has faced ridicule. In a separate controversy earlier this year in the New Zealand Herald, Doutre's claims to have discovered Celtic standing stones north of Auckland were dismissed as inane by a series of scholars, including the historian Paul Moon, who characterised Doutre as part of the 'lunatic fringe' of historical research. Moon's condemnation was particularly significant, because the Franklin E Local had cited him as a supporter of Doutre's views.

A year after Doutre's implosion, Mykeljon Winckel has been canny enough to find a different 'expert' to help with his new attack on the 'conspiracy' to suppress the true history of New Zealand's ancient white people. Unfortunately, though, his new article - which is called, with suitable pomposity, 'NZ History Fights for its Life: our country's secret shame' - is based on the fantasies of Noel Hilliam, a man with no more credibility than Martin Doutre.

A farmer from Dargaville with no training in history or archaeology and a tendency towards New Age mysticism and far right politics, Hilliam has long been treated with suspicion by both serious researchers into New Zealand prehistory and Te Uri o Hau, the tangata whenua of the northern Kaipara. Like Martin Doutre, with whom he has collaborated on a number of political and pseudo-historical projects, Hilliam believes that an advanced, spiritually enlightened civilisation of white people settled in New Zealand thousands of years ago and flourished, before a few 'primitive' Polynesians conquered them, took their women as sex slaves, and stole their carvings and meeting houses.

Hilliam's fantasies encounter the same problems as those of Doutre - the absence of any evidence of large-scale forest clearance in New Zealand more than a thousand years ago, the absence of any sort of human remains under the tephra left by the Taupo eruptions, the absence of evidence that Celts had ocean-going ships thousands of years ago, the absence of a prehistoric DNA link between Maori and Europeans - but these problems can be explained, by those with a paranoid cast of mind, by the machinations of the same sort international conspiracy that invented the Holocaust and staged 9/11.

Mykeljon's new article presents Hilliam as a 'warrior' for truth who is enduring 'abuse and ridicule' as he labours to uncover the story of New Zealand's ancient white race. In truth, though, Hilliam does a very good of ridiculing himself through his actions and pronouncements. Last year, for instance, he made a fool of himself by telling the media that he had located a German U boat off the coast of Northland. According to Hilliam, the craft had arrived in New Zealand secretly in 1944 and dropped off 'thirteen high-ranking Nazis', as well as a pile of 'loot', before being scuttled. Strangely enough, Hilliam was not able to keep his promise to reveal the location of the ghostly submarine to the media.

Hilliam has also attracted ridicule through his misuse of a prehistoric pou found on the Pouto peninsula south of Dargaville. Although even a cursory view of the pou reveals that it is distinctively Polynesian, Hilliam decided that it belonged to the 'Universal Peace Nation of Waitaha', an ancient species which lived on a distant planet before coming to earth, settling in Egypt for thousands of years, and eventually migrating to New Zealand via South America. The Waitaha 'nation' is in fact a South Island family called the Rukas which makes a few dollars taking flaky Californians on New Age tours of 'sacred sites' in New Zealand. In 1996 Hilliam held a bizarre ceremony with Patrick Ruka, a Waitaha 'elder', to 'welcome' the Pouto pou into Dargaville, a private institution he once had some influence over. The Dragaville museum has now distanced itself from Hilliam, and removed his 'Waitaha' pou from display.

Some idea of Hilliam's research methods is given by an article by his fellow pseudo-historian Gary Cook in the latest issue of Rainbow News, the New Age magazine that keeps Kiwis informed about the latest developments in venerable pseudo-sciences like numerology and astrology. Cook's article explains how he and his mate Noel wander the beaches and farms of the Kaipara, tuning in to 'spiritual' energies and making 'intuitive' discoveries of ancient wrecked ships and Celtic open-air temples. Of course, these 'discoveries' invariably disappear mysteriously before they can be shared with other, less spiritually enlightened researchers. Cook's ramblings are illustrated with a photo of Noel Hilliam standing on a Kaipara beach holding a piece wood up to this nose. Apparently this 'nose test' is his way of identifying the origin of wooden objects.

If Hilliam's submarine-hunting and New Age mysticism have earned him ridicule, his desecration of ancient burial sites in the Kaipara region has earned him the contempt of the Maori people who have ties to those sites. Hilliam is currently being investigated by the Historic Places Trust, which has received complaints that he has violated the New Zealand Historic Places Act of 1993 by entering burial caves and removing skeletons without permission. Hilliam's own boasts to the media suggest that he may be liable for prosecution under the terms of the Act.

University of Auckland Law Professor David V Williams is a man who is particularly familiar with the antics of Noel Hilliam. Williams, who is an expert on New Zealand legal history, has had a long relationship with the iwi which has been the target of Hilliam's vandalism. After reading the recent posts about Hilliam's activities on this blog, Williams sent us this e mail:

Greetings. When I was advising Te Uri o Hau during their Waitangi Tribunal hearings and Treaty Settlement negotiations in the 1990s tribal elders expressed a considerable degree of concern about the activities of Noel Hilliam and the people then running the Dargaville Museum. The Tribunal hearings themselves included a good deal of evidence about the pillage of sacred sites by an Austrian taxidermist and grave-robber, Andreas Reischek, in the 19th century. It always seemed to me that Hilliam was a modern-day Reischek. I am hugely appreciative of the fact that there are signs your intervention will at last bring an end to this disgraceful saga. Kia kaha, kia manawanui.

Prof David V Williams, University of Auckland.

Along with Edward Ashby, who has also been heavily involved in the recent attempts to expose Hilliam and end his interference with burial sites and with Dargaville museum, I appreciate the words of support from Williams, as well as the words of support I have received from Te Uri o Hau themselves.

Somehow I doubt whether Franklin E Local's new 'scoop' will make Mykeljon Winckel's name as a crusading investigative journalist. Mykeljon's attempt to turn the grave-robbing New Age fantasist Noel Hilliam into a hero is just as quixotic as his attempt to use Martin Doutre's bigoted ravings to overturn the findings of thousands of serious, ethical researchers into New Zealand's past. Until Mykeljon learns the difference between research and fantasy he should focus on selling advertising space to fertiliser retailers and writing reports on pig hunts.

What is it with Pukekohe? Back in the early 60s when every Pakeha knew and regularly announced that NZ had the 'finest race relations in the world', Pukekohe was particularly notorious for virulent discrimination against its Maori citizens. They were regularly refused service at the pub and the only hairdresser. They could sit downstairs at the cinema but not in the balcony. A separate local primary school was created so white kids did not have to sit next to Maori. The local rag appears to sustain this ugly tradition in a new but no more attractive guise.

I think people should open their minds. Are they scared of knowing the history? It wouldn't change any thing in the treaty of waitangi because of something called conquest? I mean, if there were dinosaur foot prints found that are 70 million years old then New Zealand must be older than a few hundred years? I think that there could of been other people here during that 70 million years, imagine how many ice ages, civilisations, animals etc could they have come and gone in that time? Hmmnnn...

Er, anon, you do know that human beings haven't existed for 99% of that 70 million year history?

Our species is only, at most, about 200,000 years old. New Zealand has existed in isolation from other land masses for much longer than that (which is why we have such interesting species of bird and plant and lizard here - they developed in isolation).

Because we've been isolated for so long, humans would have had to use fairly advanced aquatechnology to get to these shores. They couldn't have swum or floated over on logs or even gotten here in most types of canoe. The indigenous people of Austalia got there very early, but they couldn't have made it here.

The Polynesians made it here eventually, but they only started spreading out across the eastern Pacific a couple of thousand years ago. Europeans didn't have the technology to get anywhere near here until some time after that date.

Already, then, before we look at other factors, we are able to narrow down the possibilities for a first arrival date somewhat.

Of course, we should keep an open mind - but where is the evidence?Certainly Noel Hilliam and Martin Doutre don't have any.

I meant to thank Country Lane for her comment. Along with Edward Ashby and Matthew Dentith - two other people involved in trying to monitor this pseudo-historical nonsense - I'm aware that some readers' patience may be tested by post after post on kooks like Doutre and Hilliam. Strange as it may seem, though, there really are people who are inclined to believe their stuff, if it isn't subjected to criticism.

Btw, I've had to change the picture at the top of this post because Mykeljon got all shy and pulled the last one off the net. I thought he wanted to be famous...

Miklejon and Noel Hilliam are white warriors defending the truth and our race.

With out European blood the Maori would only be 4'0-5'10 in heightEuropeans were 5'0-9'0 feet

Dogs - White people have always had dogs, They brought them to the Moari.

Moari have chief like CelticA Maori chief has tattoos (moko)

Europeans gave Maori spears and taught them how to fish and Hunt.

Ancient Europeans became Maori Gods

Observers and Watches that made Half Negroid/Asians live on an island as an experiment of domestincation however moari started eatting each other therefore the European (gaint, god like) had to teach Maori about Food, War, Religion and Nature.

The silliness of most of the Anons seems without limit...I am really at a loss to know what giant strides/swings have to do with anything-

Maps - and Edward & Matthew - without the exposure of the *wrongness* of Mykeljon's published views (along with those of Doutre, Brailsford et pathetic al-)even more readers could be fooled into thinking "Hey! He's right! Let's do something about this!"

Too true Keri, if we don't try and counter this stuff it doesn't get challenged. While most sensible people can differentiate between fantasy and reality, there are some quite articulate and otherwise intelligent people out there who nevertheless get sucked into it. These are the people I try to get through to, so they can at least have a balanced opinion. Of course, there are others, like the anon a few posts above, who simply seem barking mad and beyond help or reason. simply the village idiots writhing in their own cognitive excrement. Oh well, such is life.

Maps can you email me please? Then I can tell you what it is about. Sorry I don't have your contact details as soon as you can - it's to do with this blog post. Don't worry nothing sinister *I could be conspiring here*I can't ask you any other way.

legal action over what exactly anon/Hilliam? Legitimate critisism about unfounded claims? Oh, that's right, no one can challenge the word or actions of conspiracy theorists.. Freedom of speech except for when it comes from people who disagree with you right? what a joke.

If Franklin E Local believes in free speech, why doesn't it publish any accredited experts on this subject? They all disgaree with the Franklin E Local view, so they get accused of being involved in a conspiracy (cue Twilight Zone music and paranoia). Why don't they get the chance to explain WHY they don't agree.

And Noel Hilliam is a white guy right? What about the Maori view, all the Maori experts who think he is talking bs, Ranganui Walker etc etc - there are loads of them.

There's a lot of Anonymous's here Maps. I have the problem of being descended from two races. But well sorry I'll stick to the archeological record I think. I can't buy the Celtic theory but that's my look out I suppose. Back to my rural hole now.

A point worth making is that people like Doutre and Hilliam make a mockery of European as well as Celtic history with their fantasies.

Doutre's claims that Stonehenge was some huge sophisticated observatory at the heart of a worldwide ancient religion bear no relation to what experts on the site say. It's just as ridiculous as his claim that Celts made the carvings on Maori meeting houses.

And Hilliam's mate Gary Cook, who has written the embarrassing article in the latest Rainbow News about the 'research' he and Noel conduct, spouts all sorts of nonsense about the Knights Templar. He actually claims to be a mamber of the order, signs himself Sir Gary, and conducts tours for the gullible around sites he claims are associated with the Order:http://www.secretland.co.nz/gary-cook-nz-travel-diary.html

I think that scholars with an interest in subjects like Stonehenge and the Knights Templar have just as much right to protest against the nonsense of people like Doutre and Cook as scholars with an interest in New Zealand and Polynesian history.

Just to make the point about the abuse of Stonehenge history cleaer, here's Doutre on how the structure was supposedly built by (white) emigrants from Egypt, and how it expresses all sorts of ancient esoteric knowledge in its proportions:

'Stonehenge is a very sophisticated standing stone circle, which contains the sum total of knowledge found upon the Great Pyramid, Khafre and Menkaure...

The fact is that the Stonehenge site is a massive static computer...

The Stonehenge monument was set up specifically to preserve the sophisticated knowledge that had been brought from the former homeland in Egypt. It was, therefore, important to build the site within a reasonable time-span and encrypt the ancient codes quickly, lest they slip from memory and be forgotten.'

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/US9.html

I hardly need to add that no trained scholar of Stonehenge or of the people who built Stonehenge would touch this nonsense with a barge pole. Far from celebrating European history, these people make a mockery of it.

I have done a lot of research into dna testing,and there is indeed not much that suggests a celtic origin. I am the moderator of a yahoo group for dna matches of Haplogroup B MTNA. There are strong links with matriachal dna of Maori with Japan, Phillipines, and South America- chile. Lisa Matissoo Smith gave a very interesting lecture at Auckland University not so long ago on these archaeological and dna discoveries. Which prove that the Maori, and their ancestors did indeed travel long distances. If they could go as far as Japana and the South americas, it would be easy to go via Mongolian territory to Egypt and experience the culture themselves.They are after all hunter gatherers.Haplogroup B the MTNA of a reasonable percentage of the Maori women tested has been found as far afield as Hungary. Perhaps the Celtic people learned from the ancient Maori, before the Maori left their original homelands and came to New Zealand.As for Polynesians being smaller than Celtic people? DId I read that correctly?There has been evidence of petroglyphs found that are of asian origin.And the underground discoveries at Yonaguni are facsinating. As is the fact that the Yayoi people of Japan, used to have tomb type burials like the Egyptians. Barry Fells theory was that the Maori people travelled from Libya, so were well acquainted with the Egyptians. Some of the old Maori Nga Puhi traditions talk of the Maori coming from that area. The egyptian boat of Khufu found under the pyramids does have similar appearance to Polynesian vessels. I am unsure what that has to do with Celts however.

I think it's a bit of a long stretch to say that Maori travelled to egypt in prehistory. It's one thing to travel to countries bordering the Pacific for a people with good maritime skills, its another to hike all the way across continents from Japan to Egypt. Besides, the chronologies don't match up with Maori, let alone east Polynesia. So that really doesn't make much sense. Also, Maori weren't really what you could call hunter-gatherers, and boats or canoes will often have superficial likenesses as there is only so much freedom in design when functionality might be the primary concern. Such hyper-diffusionist ideas are quite problematic.

But your DNA work sounds very interesting, and your quite right to say that archaeological evidence supports the fact that Polynesian peoples could travel great distances across the Pacific. It would be funny, like you say, if the Celtic idea was flipped on its head though..

Well it is all very fascinating. Haplogroup B starts in Africa as do all DNA groups, then travels through the Middle east and ends up in the Americas and Polynesia.I have dna matches in Hawaii, New Zealand,Japan and the Phillipines.I am too descended of Nga Puhi. Yet that above line is from my Te Atihaunui A Paparangi side.

You say the Maori could not have travelled to Egypt? Yet they did travel. The path of this dna alone shows that they were travellers. To have come such a long way.

You only need one person to travel a path, to influence others. If the Yayoi of Japan had Egyptian type like ornaments in their tombs, and they had contact with the Mongols, who had contact with Egypt, then you can at least entertain the thought that it is possible. There are vessels found from the time of Queen Hatshepsut that show the Egyptians travelled large distances. As the barnacles on the wood show that they were at sea for longer than two months at a time.

As to the Nga Puhi connection. I was at the Lisa Matissoo Smith lecture when a man present in the audience stood and spoke of how the Nga Puhi traditions had similar concepts ( he spoke of the tabernacle of Moses- having similar customs as to that of the meeting house)to that of ancient civilisations.I read an old book on Maori symbolism that spoke of the tribes of Maori and their travels before they came to New Zealand.

A tohunga my Mother knew gave her some writings on what he said was the journey of the Maori before they came to NZ.

There are many similarities. The large climbing structures they used to make for ceremonies, are similar to those the Egyptians used for the God Min for example..

Elsdon Best makes many comparisons to the Egyptian religions. Io and Ha.The more you study archaeology and history, the more you learn that it is always changing which each new discovery, the line shifts.Lisa matissoo smith spoke of the Kumara. How people say that the Maori could not have travlled that far. It must have driftrd over.Yet how come it has the same name- did it have a name tag on it. Why are there polynesian chickens in Chile?

It is akin to the Europeans saying they discovered New Zealand and America and everywhere else. Yet if people were already living there, how could they have?

The damp conditions in New Zealand are not as ideal for preserving old wooden artifacts such as boats, as other climates are.

DO not underestimate a people, that have managed such a long journey. As to Barry Fell, a lot of research by others has substantiated some of his theories scoffed at by his earlier colleagues. History keeps changing. Just as some Maori beleive, time is not linear everything is always happening. I read an interesting book, talking of Maps called Cave City and Eagles Nest, about an ancient map from mexico, charting the journey to the land of the ancestors. How can you say, Maori are not hunter gatherers?

"Cave, City, and Eagle's Nest" sounds fascinating - a cartographic history no less.

Incidentally, in the south (from Timaru onwards)people were more hunter-gatherer than agriculturist. While we did utilise ti-tree roots and aruhe (and had developed techniques to increase the yields of both), we essentially depended on trade (or kaihaukai) with people further north for kumara. But we werent what were classically called 'hunter-gatherers'-

I had written two queries and comments re Adrienne's post.Was the old book on Maori symbolism called "MNaori Symbolism" by Ettie Rout? That's a real poisoned chalice.Climbing structures? The food display frames used at kaihaukai?

Elsdon Best on the cult of Io (and others who wrote of it) are a bit compromised by the original informant. And when hearing anecdotal evidence about things that may seem related to OT matters, it pays to recall that Christians have been proslytising here for well over a century & a half (and Maori may have contact with the christian religion before the missionaries arrived here to ANZ.)

It is assumed that histories are made up to coincide with the Europeans. While I will concede that the Europeans often coloured their writings with their own opinions, I do not think we should throw the baby away with the bathwater.

Why do you think the Maori have kept so much of their knowledge secret? Because they were tired of having to defend their beleifs , knowledge and experiences. Today this still happens. On a spiritual note, "Mana from heaven" is a fascinating read.One could argue is it contact witb other peoples or universal consciousness that provides the similarities between religions and cultures.

Yet evidence of wider links are being made via DNA, and archaeology. When my dna was first tested, I noted that the earlier mutations were all in South America. When I queried this with NAtional Geographic project and assked if this meant my haplogroup and travelled to NZ via South America and Asia, they said it was probably just coincidence. Yet a few years later, they are putting a lot of their energy investigating the links between the Americas and Polynesia.In a marae up north, there is a panel dedicated to the ancestors that travelled from Tibet. This may have seemed a far fetched story to some, yet now, maybe not so.I like to watch with interest as history changes.

how could the Polynesians possibly have contacted ancient civilisations in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East when they didn't exist when these civilisations were flourishing? Surely they would have needed a time machine?

The Polynesian contact with South America which is suggested by the chicken bones in Chile is very recent, in historical terms.

Matisoo-Smith and others believe that Polynesians pushed on from Rapa Nui and possibly Hawaii all the way to the mainland and brought back the kumara after dropping off a few chickens. But Rapa Nui and Hawaii were only settled around about fifteen hundred years ago.

I think it is easy to misread DNA results by focusing on connections without remembering the time periods that have elapsed since the connections were made.

For instance Gavin Menzies, who touts the absurd theory that Maori are the descendants of Melanesian slaves who revolted and took Chinese concubines as their partners hundreds of years ago, claims that the DNA evidence which shows that the distant ancestors of the Maori were present in what is now China four or five thousand years ago backs up his theory!

I would be curious to know the name of the Northland marae with the painting of Tibet.

That Northland marae with the painting from Tibet is in Panguru, Hokianga. (I forget the name of the marae itself, unfortunately.) I believe it was visited by some Tibetan monks in the 1980s, and they either left or later sent the painting of their homeland. There was some talk at the time of various slight similarities between their language and customs and those of the local Maori but I doubt that anyone in either group seriously proposed or believed in a direct genealogical connection. These stories can easily be distorted and exaggerated.

But we intermarried early & often(so it would be hiding stuff from our kids), and while much of our land was removed blatantly or stealthily, we didnt have the Land Wars per se.

I do know my (3rd cousin) Ka Puhi rellies keep some stuff close to their chests, but that's fine. It isnt a vast swathe of esoteric knowledge, and it doesnt (I am very reliably informed) appertain to distant-places-we-might've-got-to. Nor to people who might've travelled to here. No Phonecians. No Egyptians. No Ancient Clets. No Chinese.

But it's always good to hear other *informed* viewpoints. Like yourself, I am intrigued by some of the olds' views about time. It fits with modern physicists' own viewsa-

Actually it is a tukutuku panel. Not a painting given by Tibetan monks.It is Motuti marae. I am sure they do not mind if you beleive them or not. That is not the point really.

What do you mean the Maori did not exist Maps? Do you think they appeared out of thin air and arrived at New Zealand?

They were obviously somewhere before Hawaii and Samoa. I have the notes of Lisa Matissoo Smiths lecture regarding the migration of haplogroup B. But is too lengthy to place here. There is evidence that 1) egyptians travelled long distances very early on- thousands of years ago. 2) the Polynesian peoples dna shows the men are mainly of melanesian origin, the women more asian/ hap b origins.3) those of the Phillipines are also known for their advanced navigational skills. Another link in the dna.4) there are women in my dna group who are black americans. They thought they had native american dna, but have discovered it is Polynesian dna.

5) The Jomon people of Japan were goddess worshipping people thay disappeared after the Yayoi- to where did they go,from where did they come.6) the Lapita people- cant wait to see the dna tests from those remains, that will be fascinating.

I am a fan of Joseph Campbells and as such am always more likely to find the commonalities between different races and religions than the differences.How could the Maori have had contact with the Egyptians. I have told you how- via Japan, via the Mongolian route, or perhaps via the Americas. Joseph campbell has a lot to say bout the sinilarities between Egypt and India. There are simlarities between India and Maori beleifs.

By the way, I looked up Pat Ruka on the internet. And it looks like he has been very busy helping people with addictions to drugs and alcohol.Something he must be commended for dont you think? rather than bringing up an interview from 12 years ago.

Adrienne - there were & are Maori/Maohi from Tahiti to Rarotoka to here. There are Eastern Polynesians (as we are) through - well Eastern Polynesia!

There is buggerall evidence we were elsewhere *as* Eastern Polynesians.

Males as Melanesians? Females as Polynesians? The material I've encountered *suggests* there is Melanesian (really wide grouping) input into Maori, but it is nowhere near as clearcut as you are suggesting.

Egyptian sea voyages during Hapshephut's reign were within the Red Sea (that's where the barnacles came from - & they are controversial.) There is NO other uncontested evidence that Egyptians made long sea voyages (and -please!- dont bring up Thor Heyerdhal & "The Ra Voyage" or I will take serious pleasure in refuting you.)

To be succinct - the long history of Egypt is wellknown, established, and not controversial. In various forms, it's been around in North Africa for over 5000BCE.

Maori have been around in our part of the world for *about* 1000 years (max.)(Though I've written fiction & would dearly love it be earlier!)

There is NO evidence of any kind of Maori/Egyptian meeting/mingling/crossover. Have you checked out Rick Flavin's blog posts yet, and discovered how risible Barry Fell's ideas were?

Actually it was more than chicken bones they have found in CHile. They have found a settlement that has bones and a skull beleived to be Polynesian. They also use the same hooks as Polynesians, compared to other villages in the area. They have boats made in the same way- sewn together.They have ceremonial artefacts similar to Maori. As to the dates, I cannot recall if they had carbon tested. Now as you may recall the Female DNA Hap B, comes from through the Americas, so if the men took them as wives then surely they are Maori too? So Maori did come from the Americas or descended from there. Descent and beleifs come from both sides of the gender, not just the male you know.

Adrienne- I would really appreciate a good reference (internet or paper) to your comments re *other Polynesian material including skeletal* found at a Chilean site.

If my brain isnt playing trickins, there are actually words & waka building techniques (and fish hooks - tho' as a fisher, I can safely say Polynesian-style fish-hooks occur in many places with no connection to Polynesia) much further north than Chile.

"PACIFIC Y DNAMost Mitochondrial dna is asian derived. The y chromosome has a lower frequency of Asian derived. Higher of Near Oceanic origin- New Guinea etc..Women from Asian origin, men from More Melanesian.

Here is some more from her lecture.There seems to be a clear path of III (rat)from Halmahera to Remote Oceania. Haplogroup E1A and E1B from Bismarck Archipelago are about the same age as the Polynesian haplogroups. They developed in South East Asia in Holocene period. They moved to the Bismarck Archipelago E1A line went from the Phillipines to Borneo (same as the rat) E1B also has the same distribution as the pacific pig. This shows that there was not one single event/ migration of a lapita people. It was more likely several seperate migrations of peoples to Oceania.

She then showed a map of what Oceania looked like at 3000BP. The sea levels were still settling. There were not as many islands. In 2000BP there were a lot more islands, and resting places in the Pacific as the seas settled.She beleives this points to multiple population migrations into the Pacific from 60,000BP to 20000BP. Multiple Origins for Polynesians.

SOUTH AMERICAN CONNECTIONS

CANOES/WAKASThe Polynesian had a method of sewing planks together to make waka. They also found this method used in Chumash( a Natice American tribe of Southern California). Their canoe was called a tomolo. The name also did not fit into their traditional language, as if acquired from elsewhere

They have also found similar canoe in Chiloe. The same construction as the canoe on Rapanui. In fact there was quite a few similarities with the Chiloe Mapuche people

She showed us photos of their artefacts, The Mapuche clava- an instrument with a round head like a speaking parrot was used by the chiefs when talking

It was the sign of a high chief. She then showed similar artefacts in Polynesia and NZ of the same shape.Also the Mapuche wore "toki Kura" a adze shaped necklace ( an article here outlines some of the other similarities)

In NZ they wore toki pounamo.The Chumash fishhooks changed shape about 750-900AD when compared with Hawaiian fish hooks there was no difference. They changed their fishing habits and started catching deepwater fish about 500-1000AD.

In the Otago Museum in NZ one of Lisas colleagues was excited to find a stick that was used by the maori to play a hockey like game. The Mapuche have a similiar stick called a Palin.Then there is of course the Kumara, And the Bottle gourd. The NDNA revealed the gourd was from Asian and American origins.Early histories form Peru related to early lineages in Polynesia. Also a link with the chicken.

MOCHA ISLAND CHILE.A cranial piece of a skull found on Mocha Island appears to be Polynesian in origins. It has the "rocker jaw" commonly found in Polynesians, which is not found on the mainland of Chile. It has not been dated yet. But it appears that there may have been some Polynesian people here. The direction of the winds, from Polynesia show that it would have been easy for a voyager to be thrown up onto the tip of the island at the edge of Chile.

Likely it was men who travelled out from Micronesia and Polynesian, Voyagers, Who then when returned home taking the local women with them. Rather than a Polynesian triangle she suggest that it should perhaps also include sorts, with the tip reaching United states (Chumash people) and the also touching Chile..

She did mention of course Thor heyerdahl and how he proved that the SOuth American connection was possible with his voyages. If Lisa believes Thor Heyerdahl Iam with here.

I have been following dna research and have had my yahoo group with mtna matches since 2006. This internet link shows some Chilean researchhttp://mainweb.hgo.se/conf/conference2007.nsf/d58a35499d98cdbdc1256df100359b6b/c77733f51ea3121ec12571da0026a58b!OpenDocument

Here is another link about the canoes of the CHumash with the Polynesians

This article here from National geographic talks about the oldest vessel ever found- in Egypthttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0307_060307_egypt_ships.htmlIt statesThere is no doubt that the planks are from oceangoing ships, Ward says, because they show damage from a type of wood-boring mollusk called a shipworm, which only lives in salt water.

And the extent of the damage indicates that the ships were in the water for several months—long enough to make a journey of several thousand miles.

It also saysIn addition to the ship remains, the caverns contained cargo boxes with inscriptions revealing that Punt had indeed been the vessels' destination.

Nobody is sure where Punt was located. But the trip there would probably have followed the coast rather than striking out across any large expanses of open water." So while people may surmise it was in the red sea there is no proof as yet.

I will be following up all the material you have provided- and it *so* refreshing to have someone actually do so.

Thor Heyedhal attempted to show that jangadas/balsa-wood rafts could've taken South American people into the Pacific. "The Kon Tiki Voyage" was landmark reading in my childhood, but it established no such thing. "The Voyage of the Ra" was even less useful for establishing ? Egyptian contact. (Thor Heyerdhal actually believed that a white race of stone workers from Anatolia were responsible for ALL stone-work based civilisations in both (his terms) the Old World and the New World. Including Polynesia.)

I have a wonderful letter - as in truly manic & nutty -from him that I keep in a safe. In his later age, he was not exactly compos mentis.)

Punt is almost certainly in Ethiopia.And. given wallowy characteristics of the Eygptian boat, it very well may have taken some time to get there by sea.Given that were overland trade trails, I wonder why people would bother?(The other possible 'Punt' is Lebanon.)

The reason why people always bother- wealth- gold, trade, slaves.Almost certainly Ethiopia. IS not definately Ethiopia.If they have only just found this seafaring vessel, what else and where else may they lay undiscovered.

Did you not read the information on the first link at the bottom?"The Polynesia - Mapuche Transpacific Contact

Jose Miguel Ramirez-Aliaga (Universidad de Valparaiso)

A number of cultural parallels between Polynesia and South America have been explained as borrowings from one side or the other, but there was no way to prove they were independent developments either. Recently, the first evidence for a Polynesian contact was found in central – south Chile, the land of the prehispanic and present Mapuche people (Lat. 32º to 42º South). A number of Polynesian like traits have been described among the Mapuche: hand clubs similar to the Maori wahaika, axes called toki and axe-like pendants called toki kura, besides other linguistics matchings. Some cultural parallels could remain as independent inventions, like the cooking oven or some fishing techniques, while others can be borrowings from Quechua, like the potato called “kumaka” in Chiloe island, but the first strong evidence for a direct Polynesian contact with a Southamerican prehispanic culture contact makes the Mapuche a new member of the old Pacific world. A new approach to the Maori – Mapuche materials is provided.

"toki" = adze.Can also mean axe, but that is a bit problematic."tokipounamu/pounemu" is a shape you can find from Maya to European areas in jade. And in China. And anywhere there is jade and and people who make adzes.

O Adrienne - it's pretty clear Ramirez is saying *Rapanui* is the source of much of the Mapuche material' I have difficulty with the wahaika bit - it's an asymetrical club alright, but it's not a mere and it's notasymetrical 'at the extreme end." Trust me. I own 3 of them.

What can I say? If the dna and archaeological expert in New Zealand for National Geographic Genographic project- Lisa Matissoos Smiths research is not convincing enough for you. Then frankly what would be?

Why is it so hard to beleive that Maori had the ability and the nous to travel large distances to trade with other countries?To chart their journeys, rather than accidentally arrive at somewhere?I for one am glad that research is finally providing "evidence" that supports the stories of the Maori that have for so long been disregarded as unbeleivable by Europeans. Just because it took Europe so long to be able to travel long distances, it doesnt mean that other cultures werent already doing it.

New discoveries can only be made if one is open to the possibility that what is 'Known" at the present can shift as surely as the sands on the beach.Otherwise we may as well just stop.As in Full stop.

I've continued Maps to read all this interesting debate going on. A long discussion the other night with Timespanner and some follow ups while the conversation was going on brought me to this conclusion. If the bones of Maori are being found then they should be left well alone unless it is investigated by qualified Archeologist and those specialising in Forensic archeology and the site recorded. And as I understand it such sites are supposed to come under the Historic Places Act. Hit me on the head with a brick it I'm talking garbage here. I would not be happy if someone dug up my ancestor's bones then damaged the site without care. It should be left to the experts, recorded by the experts and registered as the law requires. Right I'm off to write a thesis now on how the Alien Visitors put Rangitoto in Auckland Harbour as a landing beacon - and have a coffee while I contemplate what I'll make up in my head next.

I think you're misinterpreting or misconstruing what the DNA and archaeological evidence actually points to, and setting up far too many premises which aren't backed up by the evidence.

For a start, you cite Lisa Matisoo Smiths evidence relating to the movement of populations out of southeast Asia, into near Oceania, and eventually out into West and East Polynesia before pushing further east at some point and contacting the west coast of South America, and adopting the kumara. This isn't exactly controversial. In fact, this has been known for some time and is taught in entry-level courses in archaeology. The fact that Central East Polynesian populations had at least some form of trade or contact with West Coast South America is a given which no one would argue. But, to argue that Maori came from South America is to blatantly disregard the evidence you yourself just put forward: How can you cite that the DNA evidence points to a west-east migration, while at the same time argue for a east-west migration at a latter time which doesn't match up with the very dates you first put forward? That's illogical, even by your own argument.

Secondly, to imply that because Polynesian peoples (note: not Maori) could travel then they could easily get to egypt is a logical fallacy (if that's the right term?) which fails to take into account any variables. For example:A) Polynesians can travel far distancesB) Egypt is far away from PolynesiaC) Therefore, Polynesians went to Egypt.

How do you marry a maritime people and their technology with the claim that they walked all the way across the Eurasian continent, the largest continent in the world, to Egypt? And why would they? And how did they know where or what Egypt is? Where is the evidence?

As for the Egyptian link itself. Who says that Japanese material culture is anything like Egyptian Material culture? From what i've seen they look very, very different. As for the boat with barnacles, as Keri says, why does this have to be the open sea? Why not from the Mediterranean? And why do you assume that such a boat couldn't have sat in the Nile Delta for a few months or even on the Harbours to the Mediterranean itself? Do Greek and Roman vessels have no barnacles on them? Strange assumption on your part.

As for the other diffusionist assumptions you put forward with regard to material culture, again you are leaving out environmental, evolutionary, and human agency as factors which work towards culture. You make no recognition of the difference between homologous vs analogous characteristics in societies. In other words divergent vs convergent evolution or a joint history vs a convergent response to identical functional problems. Leaving this out of any idea of past human culture is a step back in theory and method by about 60 years. Not to sound harsh, but I suggest this is becuase you have based your ideas on a muddled interpretation of DNA evidence alone.

As for your continued assertions about Maori, Maps and I say they did not exist at the time when Egypt was flourishing because, as Keri says, Maori have only been Maori for at the most about 1000 years. Maori culture evolved from the early Polynesian settlers of NZ, who came from Central East Polynesia, who in turn came from the west and so on and so forth until you get what archaeologists sometimes call 'proto-Polynesians' who were preceeded by Lapita peoples from the PNG and Solomon Islands area. This is well known, so I am somewhat suprised you are unnaware of it (this route is even displayed on maps in Te Papa and other NZ museums).It therefore isn't even concievable that Maori could have gotten to Egypt unless, as Maps says, they had a time machine and perhaps also an airliner or steamboat to get them there. Therefore such ideas can be discredited at the first get go. In the same way me saying T-Rex and dogs lived at the same time same be discredited.

Again I think you are misinterpreting Lisa Matisoo Smith where you claim that She agrees with Thor Heyerdahl - She (and every other archaeologist on the planet will agree that communication/travel to south America was possible), but I doubt very much that she would agree with Thor's theories - his ideas are 'fringe' at best and Lisa herself would be able to tell you why. I think its dangerous to put words in her mouth like that.

And, need I point out that the fact that Punt is almost certainly in Ethiopia does not mean that there is a fair chance therefore it is in America or wherever you think it might be. That again is a dizzying leap in logic and lacks any evidence. That's like Bertram Russells orbiting teacup argument - prove to me there isn't a celestial teacup circling the sun.

I guess at the end of the day it appears you are taking legitimate archaeological and DNA evidence for Polynesian migrations and movements including contact with the West Coast of South America, and then trying to stretch that evidence out and make that fit with ideas about a pan-global hyper-diffusion from Egypt while also arguing that time is not linear and that Maori chronologically coexisted with ancient Egypt where salt-water crustaceans apparently don't exist in the salt water of the mediterranean, Scholars like Thor and Best should be listend to while at the same time arguing that the beauty of history is that ideas change, and ignoring the simple reality of homologous vs analogous evolution in societies and material culture. Please believe me when I say I have not meant to be harsh here or overly critical, but you have put forward many assertians which are either not backed up by any evidence or completely contradictory and illogical. I think it is important to try and sort through your info so you can see where scholars will agree with you and why they don't in other areas.

Again, I think you've on very very shakey ground to try and claim that Lisa and other scholars in NZ agree with your hyper-diffusionist time-travelling ideas. As someone who is a student of archaeology at the University of Auckland I am very familiar with Lisa's work and with the views of archaeologists. Afterall, many of these people are the one's who taught me. I emplore you again to be careful when you try to use an argument to authority in such a way.

As for the rest, no one here is saying Maori and Polynesians weren't great navigators - in fact maps and myself are always battling people like Hilliam and Doutre who try to claim that, so I think it very unfair to try to claim we hold such poor views of Maori. And very dishonest. Archaeologists are afterall the ones who have argued that Polynesians were great navigators who circumvented the largest ocean on earth before Europeans were sailing. This goes back many years to the work of Green. Again, you are arguing a point which is already a given and of which no one diagrees with you about. It makes me wonder, honestly, how such an expert in DNA has absolutely no clue as to what the current consensus is in NZ archaeology..Anyway, again i've not meant any offense, but I really do feel compelled to sort out some of your rather odd assertions. Perhaps it would pay you to email Lisa and ask her to clarify her position with regard to the content of the posts you have put up here and your assertion that she agrees with you?

Anon,Yes some of the traditions are facinating - and I would never wish to try and take away from that. I just cite the archaeological evidence, which is only one of many ways of telling a good narrative. Comes down to different outlooks or priorities I guess, empirical or traditional. They're just different.

Edward. I was at Lisas lecture. You were not.I did not say she agreed witn Thor Heyerdahls views at all. I said that she said he had proved a voyage was possible.I am not 'dishonest', thank you, if you do not beleive the notes I provided contact Lisa or your colleagues at the University who are familiar with her work and ask for yourself. I have no need to verify what was said.

You say all Maori came from Central Asia.. and so forth and so on. How can you say that? Have you seen all the dna testing? At present there is only a small amount done.

If my mtna - from a direct female lineage which I can trace back to before europeans came, is haplogroup B, and within my own mutations, the previous mutation - i,e the older line are all in south america- then actually I can say that my ancestress- who is a maori ancestor is descended from that area.

Are you saying she is not a Maori/ Polynesian ancestress? That the hawaiian and Maori also that are exact matches, are not Polynesian?

If your argument that before they came to NZ Maoris werent Maoris, then what do you prefer I call my ancestress? Or those that are linked with them before they came to New ZEaland. What shall I call them before they came to Polynesia? How about Maori ancestors? Just because dna can only be traced back to a line that was started a certain amount of time ago, that does not mean people did not exist before that point. Just that we have not found evidence of them.

If you want to know more about DNA, then have it tested through NAt Geographic, or family tree, then you can join the groups that are privy to information not on the WWWW. There is not the capacity here to post endless research and articles.

I did not say the Japanese were Egyptian. Read my posts more carefully please. Is said that Egyptian type ornaments were found in the Yayoi tombs.

Calling me a timetravelling Hyperdiffusionist? Not meaning to cause offence? Actually the Nga Puhi teachings of Io, say that Io exists in a space beyond time. As do the Ancestors of the Maori.Cave City and eagles nest explores a map, which shows the ancestors co-existing alongside the present people. As it states- they DID interact with them as if they were present. A concept unfamiliar to western concepts and minds.This blog does mention time travelling in its heading. I did not. I mentioned a possible way that contact may have occured. Please read my posts more carefully before you make such assertions. AS an archaeology student, you should be aware that one discovery can change history.Oh and it wasnt barnacles- Nat Geo said sea worm holes- which proves loing journeys were taken. I did not say it went to America. You once again added 1+ 1 to make 10.If you want to discuss such matters properly join a dna forum. Or an egyptian one - I can recommend Glyphdoctors.

I didn't mean to imply you were lying, just that I think you misinterpreted something. And I said 'dishonest' in the context of your implying Maps or I don't think Polynesians were great maritime navigators. Again, in the first paragraph you show your confusion when you say Lisa said Thor proved such voyages were possible - no one today at all is arguing that they weren't! (As i've already said at least twice!) The argument isn't about if there was contact between Polynesia and S America at all, that's just a strawman you've set up yourself. So in fact, yes, yes you do need to back up what you claim, as so far you've stated that Lisa said things which we all already agree with (Polynesians could travel far), but then you've gone on to imply all maner of other issues which do not logically follow and tried to claim that Lisa and scholars in general somehow back up your claims. If you can't tell the difference, then i'm at a complete loss as to where to start..

I don't recall saying Maori came from Central Asia, I specifically said Maori culture evolved from the Central East Polynesian settlers who founded NZ.

As for your DNA, I don't know, i'm not trained in that field, but my understanding is that Haplogroup B is found, in varying forms, all around the Pacific rim. You're next question about Hawaiians and Maori I don't understand. Sorry.

As for your questions about 'what is a Maori'. Well, i'm not speaking about traditions, i'm just speaking in terms of ancestral populations or cultures and thought I had already explicity explained that? I said, as I do again above, that Maori culture evolved from the early settlers of NZ who came from somewhere in Central East Polynesia. As for what they were called and what their ancestors were called, I don't know, call them what you like: Ancestral Polynesians, 'the ancestors', it's of little importance. The cultures were different. Again, at the end of your point about Maori ancestral names, you go back to discussion of DNA. You keep going back to DNA as though shifts in culture and their chronologies can all be found through DNA, as though all answers can be found in DNA. You mention something about "just because DNA can only go back so far doesn't mean people weren't around before that" is again a strawman argument which has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that cultures and or populations are static throughout time? That Maori culture has always been Maori culture all the way back some 50,000 years? That it didn't come about through gradual shifts? I suppose then by the same logic that NZ culture in 2009 in general has always existed, and that NZ'ers travelled all around the world during the previous millenia before the current status of NZ 2009 came about, as is revealed by DNA links to all other past peoples in the world? I'm afraid your example has highlighted what I meant when I said I think your argument is based only upon a muddled understanding of the DNA evidence, and at the total exclusion of archaeological and other evidence. Like I said, pretty strange for a DNA expert to not know anything about the current consensus and to try to squeeze culture out of DNA..

As for you saying "I did not say the Japanese were Egyptian. Read my posts more carefully please. Is said that Egyptian type ornaments were found in the Yayoi tombs."I never claimed you did say that Japanese were Egyptian, so perhaps it is you who needs to read posts more carefully. What I actually said was that "Who says that Japanese material culture is anything like Egyptian Material culture?"Note the word 'Material Culture'. Do you know what that is? It's a bit different to DNA which you keep going on about. Again, it seems your comprehension of archaeology is pretty poor i'm afraid, especially for someone who keeps claiming that archaeology supports your claims. I really, honestly, am not trying to be mean, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Finally, as I mentioned to the anonymous commentator above, I would not wish to take anything away from traditions, but i'm afraid traditions do not prove anything generally - be that time travel, Egyptian links, whatever - they certainly do not prove archaeology - they are just different ways of looking at things. It's like apples and oranges.

And I summarised your posts as time-travelling hyper-diffusionism becuase that's pretty much what they equate to. It was meant as an off the cuff contextualisation of some aspects of your ideas, rather than a personal insult. I've no interest in trying to insult you - you seem passionate about your history and history in general and that's great. But that doesn't mean some of the things you claim aren't wrong. I mentioned time travelling because, as a result of your claims that Maori and Egyptians 'hung out' so-to-speak, time travel would have had to have been involved. It is logically implied. Maps and myself mentioned this several times so I really am begining to wonder if you're even reading our replies before you post your comments?

As an archaeology student I can agree with you that new evidence can change the consensus and particular ideas - that science and scholarship is fluid or neverending - but as an archaeology student I also know that evidence is needed to back up claims and that shifts in science don't tend to work backwards to where they have already been - which is what your hyper-diffusionism ideas are: old and false. Archaeology has been there and done that more than 60 years ago. There is a huge, huge literature on it - if you aren't aware of this, then I suggest you shouldn't be trying to claim "archaeology says this" and "archaeology says that" because it doesn't seem you know what archaeology is saying at all.

At the end of the day I guess the old Sagan saying of"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" needs to be inforced here. You haven't offered any extrodinary evidence at all. What you have offered is evidence that Polynesians travelled around the Pacific and as far east perhaps as South America. Ok, no one is arguing with you (despite your apparent insistance that we are or that it's a new 'controversial' idea??). Other than that, you've been talking about Egyptian boats, muddled and poor interpretations of material culture, assumptions that if you can visit one place you can visit anywhere, temporally and socially static cultures, that evolution apparently plays no part (you didn't address my point about analogous vs homologous traits), and that you can derive culture through DNA..oh, and that barnacles or worm holes in wood must mean that Egyptian boats sailed the globe rather then just sat for a few months in the salt waters of the Mediterranean or Red Seas? Ye gods, if anyone here is making 1 + 1 = 10, it certainly isn't me! Occams razor needs some sharpening..

Anyway, It probably sounds stupid in light of the above, but I really am not trying to get at you personally. I just have huge, huge problems with many of your claims with regards to human history. I am glad that you have such an apparent passion for it, and that's great if you really do work with DNA (are you actually a DNA researcher - it's not clear?) which I admit I have only limited knowledge in. I also think its fantastic that you are knowledgeable about some of the traditions. I guess what i'm trying to say is that i'm not 'against' you, i'm merely trying to sift through many of your claims which are either illogical or not backed up by evidence, and putting, in plain english, why I think that. If you don't want to accept that then that's fine, you may not be open to learning or honest debate, but in the process i'm not willing to sit back and watch you bumble around trying to claim that archaeologists support your claims. That is simply untrue.

Tell me, where does anything in there suggest east-west migration? Many of the articles such as those by Storey & Matisoo-Smith et al. are about tracing the migrations of chickens across Polynesia and to South America. There certainly isn't anything about Japanese or Egyptians. And I can't find a single article about such claims on the scholarly databases either (antiquity, american antiquity, current anthropology, molecular biology etc.). Would you please be able to direct me to the sources which support your claims?

Edward- excellent job of untangling threads!Adrienne first introduced herself as 'moderator of a yahoo group of dna matches for Haplogroup B mtna.'Some later material suggests that arachaeology - and history- are not necessarily considered pertinent for her research/moderation.

Speaking of people coming from the earth-in the South, we know about Kui's people, who lived in the ground like ants. As oral history, it is exactly on a par with Te Kahui tipua. Or maeroero. Or (sigh) patupaiarehe or turehu.

Humans have been making up ghostie/elfin/other stories since we could talk-

Maps has said things about people and their views, yet he hasnt even met them. And that seems to be okay with you all. Dont mean to cause offense.

I post one piece from a lecture, that I did attend, and yet my posts are wrong. Your posts say things like- you suggest, you imply etc. If I did not say it directly then it is you that implies it not I.

Because you dont understand what DNA is showing researchers , please dont assume therefore that I have a "muddied" view of it.

I am unsure what Archaeology and History Keri thinks I do not find pertinent.You have constantly asked for my references, which I have provided, and you have in return given me generalisations of your own views saying they are the consensus, the accepted views- of who? your own friends? I have been directed to Rick Flavins blog? Who on earth made Rick Flavin an expert. IS he another friend?

If you all just want to keep to your own point of views fine. I have finally "got that". Excuse me for trying to rock your boats by suggesting ancient people may have been able to travel as far as the Europeans finally did.

Continue to blast anyone who stands up against the "authorised version" of history as written by Eurpoeans. Men who threw their hands up in despair, because the Maoris obviously dont know what they are talking about, as they cant even get their stories to agree. The fact that there were many and multiple planned migrations , rather than a few boats got blown off course never occurred to them as a reason for this.

Have you researched the Ainu of Japan? What about the Jomon? I have. Many of the articles and research is not available online. There are excellent articles that can be found in Archaeology magazine that are in depth only if you read the actual magazine.Have you researched the trading between the people of the Phillipines and japan?Have you read the Morien Institutes work at Yonaguni?

Maps research on Pat Ruka consists of an internet link dated to 1997.No problem with that for you? Also I did not say Lisa Matissoo SMith mentioned Egypt and Japan, is that how you like to discredit my posts?

If you choose to disbeleive that there are links to Japan with Maori dna, that frankly is your problem. Maybe you need to wait and see someone publish it on the internet first.

If you all know where ALL the Maori came from then for goodness sake contact Nat Geographic and all the other researchers working on it and let them know the answer, before they waste any more of their time on it.

By the way- Some Maori genealogies do go back to the beginning of creation- which is the forming of the void and descends to Papatuanuku and Rangi then continues. Are you going to call them hyperdiffusing time travellers who think they are extraterrestrials as well?

I am meeting Pat Ruka for the first time this week, I will ask him about that- in person. I prefer to go to the source, it is usually so much more accurate, dont you agree.Thats it I am out of here. You can have another good go if you like, which you obviously do.

P.s typo, should have said if you choose NOT to believe in links with Japan.

Also re patupairuhe Turehu, and the subsequent comment- Humans are always MAKING UP stories of ghosts etc?? Some anthropology research may be of benefit. Or Shamanic traditions regarding the validity of non ordinary realities. May I suggest the works of Michael Harner to start you off. You may find some on the internet.I know, I said I am going.

Adrienne - you are obviously a believer in woowoo(I am an atheist: I loathe the effect religions & nasty human 'spiritual' inventions have had on all other beings in our world.)As such - and given the misinterpretation of your given sites (e.g the one that clearly referred to Rapanui influences on -possibly- a couple of parts of the South American mainland)- I wont correspond with your posts again.

my view on Patrick Ruka doesn't just come from an internet page from 1997 - it also comes from reading critiques of the man from the Maori whose history he has misrepresented.

You might want to have a look at an essay (it's online - I can't copy and paste the URL on this computer but try a google search) called Neo-imperialism and the misappropriation of Indigenity, by Mikare Harawira, and also Tipene O'Regan's chapter on pseudo-history in the 1999 Judith Binney-edited book The Shaping of History. Harawira (a member of your own Nga Puhi iwi) and O'Regan (a member of the Kai Tahu iwi whose history Ruka has attempted to appropriate) both explain how Ruka and his mate Barry Brailsford advance ideas that are based no on evidence but on New Age mysticism and on he desire of some Pakeha to dispute the indigenity of Maori.

I'm afraid it seems your lack of understanding of how genuine scholarship such as archaeology and history works, and failure to take on board or address anything any of us have said leaves me not wishing to waste my time further debating you or sorting through your muddled posts. I'm open to debate, but it needs to be logical, thought out, and backed up. I'm not getting that from you. As my last post to you implied, now all I am asking is for the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: where is it? The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine and not those of other scholars.

I asked for references which back up your assertions: you have NOT given me any whatsoever. And i'm talking about journal articles not the www as you keep on about. What you have given us is references to articles whose conclusions are very different to what you claim. Take for example the one about Egyptian boats:

"It looks as though they created ships in kit form, carried them over the desert, sailed to Punt, got what they required, and abandoned the ships"

"Nobody is sure where Punt was located. But the trip there would probably have followed the coast rather than striking out across any large expanses of open water."

"That's because the Egyptians, at home on the waters of the Nile, were not great ocean navigators."

Tell me please, where this supports your claims of Egyptian global sea travel or Egyptian and Maori links? It doesn't. And these are the conclusions of the experts who ACTUALLY studied the evidence. All you have done is completely disagreed with them and claimed it's evidence supporting your hyper-diffusionist ideas. The same can be said of your other 'references'.

And no, the current consensus doesn't refer to my mate's opinion. It refers to the most current and widely accepted theories which are backed up a variety of sustained evidence. Your claim that it is otherwise merely highlights your own ignorance. Again, all i'm asking for is evidence, from reliable journal articles which back up your bizarre claims. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean no one can require you to back it up. You're not infallible and your not above needing evidence just like everybody else. I started off duologue with you reasonably tactful and respectful of your views, while disagreeing, but your continual rejection of taking on board anything and everything we have suggested, accusations that the current consensus is just something I 'made up', and that genuine scholars support your hyper-diffusionist time-travelling claims is quite simply drivel of the highest degree. While apparently on the opposite end of the political spectrum of pseudo-science from Doutre, your nonsense is nevertheless on a par with his ramblings. I find your claims that genuine scholars in NZ agree with you quite insulting and a base lie. Like Keri, I will waste no more time on such people.

Until a few years ago, there was a widely held belief that the ancient Egyptians did not travel long distances by sea because of their poor naval technology.

People in the past tended to assume that the ancient Egyptians did not make long-distance trips because little evidence of such journeys has been found.

Based on this belief, they also thought that the Land of Punt, the fabled source of many ancient Egyptian imports, could not have been located in the Horn of Africa, but must have been in southern Sinai.

However, this view is changing.

Now, according to a report in Al-ahram weekly, in order to find how the ancient Egyptians sailed to the Land of Punt, and how did they use their maritime technology to resist the destructive forces of the sea, a team of French, Italian, American and Egyptian archaeologists working with shipping experts have reconstructed an ancient Egyptian ship of the first quarter of the second millennium BC called Min of the Desert...Our primary goal was to demonstrate the extraordinary capability of the Egyptians at sea, as many people, including fellow archaeologists, have thought of the Egyptians as tied to the Nile and lacking the ability to go to sea, Ward said.

The test rides were made in the shape of short trips on the Nile, then in the Red Sea, and then in the shape of a longer trial voyage south towards the Sudan from Safaga along the route used by the ancient Egyptians.

According to Mustafa, Once the sail was set, all of us remarked on the efficiency and simplicity of the ship when maneuvering and steering, and on its responsiveness. (ANI)

http://reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/exploration.htmLibya (Africa) clearly is bounded by the sea, except where it borders on Asia. Nekhau king of Egypt first discovered this and made it known. When he had abandoned the digging of the canal which leads from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he sent Phoenicians in ships, with orders to sail on their return voyage past the Pillars of Heracles (the straits of Gibraltar) until they came into the northern sea (the Mediterranean) and so to Egypt.Herodotus, Histories 4.42 Whether the circumnavigation of Africa was the result of the failure to complete the Tumilat canal - a search for an alternative route to east Africa, or an attempt to explore other possibilities the African continent might offer, one cannot be sure. Herodotus himself doubted the veracity of at least part of the accountThus the Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea (the Indian Ocean); whenever autumn came they would put in and plant the land in whatever part of Libya they had reached, and there await the harvest; then, having gathered the crop, they sailed on, so that after two years had passed, it was in the third that they rounded the pillars of Heracles and came to Egypt. There, they said - some believe it, but I do not - that in sailing around Libya they had the sun on their right hand.Herodotus, Histories 4.42 Sailing around Africa was certainly possible; Phoenician ships of the period were ocean worthy, they had sailed through the straits of Gibraltar and down the African coast. No navigational aids were needed as long as the expedition kept in sight of the coast. The fact that the sun was reported to have changed its position is good evidence that it did happen. This and the disappearance of the familiar stellar constellations must have left a deep impression on the sailors' minds.

Oldest human remains found in EthiopiaWASHINGTON — The story of humankind is reaching back another million years with the discovery of "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.

We also have dramatic new evidence of sailing ability in the early historical period in Southeast Asia, in this case perhaps involving use of the monsoon winds that blow seasonally across the Bay of Bengal. About 2,000 years ago, pottery characteristic of the Indo-Roman site of Arikamedu in Tamil Nadu, on the Indian coast, found its way to the site of Sembiran in Bali (excavated by I.W. Ardika of Udayana University in Bali), an astounding 2,700 miles as the crow flies, or much more if the sailors hugged the coast. This Indian trade pottery--the largest assemblage ever found outside the Indian subcontinent itself--heralded a millennium of cultural contact that gave rise to the temples and civilizations of Pagan, Angkor, and Borobudur. Much of this trade probably involved spices--even Romans occasionally acquired cloves, which came from small islands in the northern Moluccas.

Future research, if some of the above claims are to attain the status of fact, must involve more thorough dating and more careful attention to the stratigraphic pitfalls that one can fall into, both in caves and open sites. Apparent associations between artifacts, datable materials, and geomorphological contexts can often be deceptive. Furthermore, all the coastal sites that might contain direct traces of Pleistocene colonization were inundated by a rise in the sea level of 325 feet or more after the last glacial maximum. All we see now is the inland geographical skeleton of the former landscape. Underwater archaeology might one day come to the rescue, but so far historical wrecks are proving more attractive, and lucrative, than sunken Pleistocene sites.

ranscript of The Cocaine Mummieshttp://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Misc/mummies.htmfour years ago a German scientist, Dr Svetla Balabanova, made a discovery which was to baffle Egyptologists, and call into question whole areas of science and archeology to chemistry and botany.

She discovered that the body of Henut Taui contained large quantities of cocaine and nicotine. The surprise was not just that the ancient Egyptians had taken drugs, but that these drugs come from tobacco and coca, plants completly unknown outside the Americas...

She tested tissue from 134 naturally preserved bodies from an excavated cemetery in the Sudan, once part of the Egyptian empire. Although from a later period, the bodies were still many centuries before Columbus discovered the Americas. About a third of them tested positive for nicotine and cocaine.AND FURTHER ONNARRATOR: And if American maize might have got as far as India, why couldn't tobacco or coca have reached Egypt? They could have come across the Pacific to China or Asia and then overland to Africa. The Egyptians need not have travelled to America at all, or known where the plants had originated, but could have got them indirectly, through a network of world trade. But any ancient trade route that includes America is unacceptable in archeology.

PROF JOHN BAINES - Egyptologist, Oxford University: "I don't think it is at all likely that there was an ancient trade network that included America. The essential problem with any such idea is that there are no artefacts to back it up that have been found either in Europe or in America. And I know that people produce examples of possible things, but they're really very implausible."

NARRATOR: Yet discovery of minute strands of silk found in the hair of a mummy from Luxor could suggest the trade stretching from Egypt to the Pacific. For silk at this time was only known to come from China. Martin Bernal argues that it would be a pity to replace earlier cultural arrogance with an arrogant belief in progrss.

PROF MARTIN BERNAL - Historian, Cornell University: "We're getting more and more evidence of world trade at an earlier stage. You have the Chinese silk definitely arriving in Egypt by 1000BC. I think modern scholars have a tendency to believe rigidly in progress and the idea that you could only have a worldwide trading network from the 18th century onwards, is our temporal arrogance - that it's only modern people that can do these things."

NARRATOR: The evidence for ancient trade with America is limited, and most of it is disputed, but it can't be completely ruled out as explaining the apparent impossibility of Balabanova's results, results that at first seemed so absurd many thought they would be explained away by a simple story of a botch-up in a lab, results that still without firm explanation continue to crop up in unexpected places.

For in Manchester, the mummies under the care of Rosalie David, the Egyptologist once so sure that Balabanova had made a mistake, produced some odd results of their own.

ROSALIE DAVID - Keeper of Egyptology, Manchester Museum: "We've received results back from the tests on our mummy tissue samples and two of the samples and the one hair sample both have evidence of nicotine in them. I'm really very surprised at this."...

NARRATOR: The tale of Henut Taui shows that in science facts can be rejected if they don't fit with our beleifs while what is believed proven, may actually be uncertain.

Little wonder then, that a story that began with one scientist, a few mummies and some routine tests, in no time at all could upset whole areas of knowledge we thought we could take for granted.

LIMA -- A study has revealed genetic links between people who inhabited northern Peru more than 1,000 years ago and Japanese, El Comercio newspaper reported Thursday.

Japanese physical anthropologist Ken-ichi Shinoda performed DNA tests on the remains of human bodies found in the East Tomb and West Tomb in the Bosque de Pomas Historical Sanctuary, which are part of the Sican Culture Archaeological Project, funded by Japan's government.

The director of the Sican National Museum, Carlos Elera, told the daily that Shinoda found that people who lived more than 1,000 years ago in what today is the Lambayeque region, about 800 kilometers (500 miles) north of Lima, had genetic links to the comtemporaneous populations of Ecuador, Colombia, Siberia, Taiwan and to the Ainu people of northern Japan.

The studies will be continued on descendents of the Mochica culture, from the same region, who are currently working on the Sican Project and with people who live in the vicinity of the Bosque de Pomac Historical Sanctuary.

Peruvian archaeologist Luis Chero told El Comercio that "currently, the DNA results have great value because they can be understood to show that there were people who arrived in these zones from Asia and who then converted these zones into the great culture of the New World."

The results of the studies will be presented at an exhibit on the Sican culture that will be set up for a year at the Tokyo Museum of Science and Nature.

Hanging Rock's famous Ruataniwha image is probably derived from an Asian-Pacific culture more than 4000 years old, according to geographer, ecologist and planner Haikai Tane.

Prof Tane is an expert in traditional Dao iconography, thetransfer of knowledge through symbols.

He recently discovered a link between early Asian-Pacific people's iconography and cave pictographs found in New Zealand.

He reports in a paper presented to colleagues in the Chinese Academy of Sciences that the Ruataniwha pictograph from the Opihi cave has links to Dao symbolism.

Archaeological discoveries in the 1970s indicate they may have been made by descendants of the Hemudu culture, prototype polynesians who were boat nomads in the South China seas between 8000-4000 years ago.

Haikai Tane also refers to two river dragon mounds recorded by archaeologist in the Ohau and Pukaki River bed in the 1970s.

It seems they were destroyed by road and river works for they are not to be found at the coordinates registered in field notes by archaeologists from Otago and Canterbury museum.

The symbols of the Ruataniwha Opihi Cave art can be "read" as watershed symbols. In 2004, Prof Tane accompanied members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences who took copies of the Ruataniwha symbology to two centres of traditional Dao learning the Tian Shifu Temple in the Jiangxi Province and Louguantai academy in the Shaanxi Province.

He says the Dao scholars recognised the symbology instantly. They all interpreted the images as a Dao model of a mountain-river-lake watershed.

A tiger mountain (Mt Cook) aligned to a dragon river and a dragon-turtle lake (Pukaki).

Suggesting that humans visited New Zealand before the generally accepted time frame of 1000 years ago, runs contrary to current New Zealand academic accounts of the first people to arrive in the country.

So far Prof Tane's findings has not been presented in New Zealand. Prof Tane claims that not many here will be interested in learning there are Dao pictographs of ancient vintage in Aotearoa New Zealand. Some people will probably be offended, he said.

When the paper was presented in China it attracted considerable interest. It is consistent with Chinese archeological discoveries of the Hemudu culture south of Hangzhou Bay which dates back 7000 years.

Prof Tane presented his paper at Xiaotong University Xian and at two academies of science in China.

Haikai Tane reports that the Hemudu people of Hangzhou Bay in Eastern China formed a proto-Polynesian culture around 7000 years ago.

From genetic research undertaken at the University of Hawaii and reported in the pan-Pacific science congress proceedings, the migrations of economic plant species such as cotton show they were taken to the Americas around 6000 years ago where they were domesticated. They were then returned as domestic plants to Asia by 4500 years ago.

He suggests these people may have visited the South Island during their travels across the Pacific more than 4000 years ago.

"It is likely the Ruataniwha pictographs were etched during one of these stopovers or early settlements to provide watershed maps of the two inland basins in Dao cultural iconography.

According to Prof Tane, the Opihi cave is along a traditional trail into the inland basin which he says several thousand years ago would have been forested and rich in food resources.

Did HUmans colonise the world by boat?Research suggests our ancestors traveled the oceans 70,000 years ago.

by Heather Pringle Jon Erlandson shakes out what appears to be a miniature evergreen from a clear ziplock bag and holds it out for me to examine. As one of the world’s leading authorities on ancient seafaring, he has devoted much of his career to hunting down hard evidence of ancient human migrations, searching for something most archaeologists long thought a figment: Ice Age mariners. On this drizzly late-fall afternoon in a lab at the University of Oregon in Eugene, the 53-year-old Erlandson looks as pleased as the father of a newborn—and perhaps just as anxious —as he shows me one of his latest prize finds.

The little “tree” in my hand is a dart head fashioned from creamy-brown chert and bristling with tiny barbs designed to lodge in the flesh of marine prey. Erlandson recently collected dozens of these little stemmed points from San Miguel Island, a scrap of land 27 miles off the coast of California. Radiocarbon dating of marine shells and burned twigs at the site shows that humans first landed on San Miguel at least 12,000 years ago, and the dart head in my hand holds clues to the ancestry of those seafarers. Archaeologists have recovered similar items scattered along the rim of the North Pacific, and some have even been found in coastal Peru and Chile. The oldest appeared 15,600 years ago in coastal Japan. To Erlandson, these miniature trees look like a trail left by mariners who voyaged along the stormy northern coasts of the Pacific Ocean from Japan to the Americas during the last Ice Age. “We haven’t published the evidence for this hypothesis yet, and I’m kind of nervous about it,” he says. “But we are getting very close.”

...I presume the series of internet references are supposed to be either examples of hyper-diffusionism, or, alternatively examples where 'one find has changed the current consensus'.I don't need to go through any of these in any detail, as I said, I asked for references from academic journals, and preferably something which mentions how Maori travelled to Egypt. But i'll just mention a couple of things anyway by each of the references. For a start i'm not too sure these are very reliable and some of them seem somewhat garbled, I would be hung drawn and quartered if I tried to use references like this in a paper, but lets assume they are all well-supported accounts for now.

The first two about Egyptians/Phonecians, firstly, which one is it? Secondly, I think their evidence isn't very compelling, and reads more like a Wilber Smith novel, but giving the benefit of the doubt, how does a people sailing to a different part of Africa by hugging the coastline support your claims?

As for the 'Ardi' fossil, what is your citing of this recent discovery supposed to imply? This hominid who pushes the dates of human evolution back is widely accepted and celebrated. It's a fantastic scientific piece of the puzzle. Pressumably you posted it as an example of 'one find changing everything we thought'. But it doesn't in the way I pressume you're implying. The theories surrounding human evolution haven't changed dramatically, they have just expanded to take in this new evidence. Its a case of apples and oranges. Seems you're using an example of NEW evidence coming to light as a boulster of your argument that OLD hyper-diffusionist notions can be worked to and picked up by science. But as I said, archaeology has been there and done that. It didn't work the first time, its not going to the second.

As for the sailing and trade in southeast Asia, this again is a strawman which simply doesn't articulate with your claims. This is however one reference which I do trust, so thank you very much for posting it. I fail to see how sailing and trade in Southeast Asia, India and the outlying Islands during the Roman era is really very controversial. These places are geographically close, and the technology to sail these seas by Island hopping or hugging coasts is vastly different to notions involving crossing Oceans. Plus, the dates again don't match up with any of your other claims - it is an irrelevant example. Also note: "if some of the above claims are to attain the status of fact, must involve more thorough dating and more careful attention to the stratigraphic pitfalls that one can fall into, both in caves and open sites. Apparent associations between artifacts, datable materials, and geomorphological contexts can often be deceptive."Perhaps you should take especial note of the above quote from the article, becuase you are doing exactly what they say not to do - relying on something as fact which hasn't been thoroughly tested.

As for your last example about corn eating, smoking mummies, that's interesting if true. But very anomolous, and not overly supporting of the kinds of claims which you've been making. It's like many anomolies, mildy interesting and one of a kind, but not really enough to support an entire theory of hyper-diffusionism. Also, I don't know much about the case or the conclusions of the actual researchers (I'm going to ignore the 'narrator') and I doubt you do either.

As is usually the case with pseudo-science, evidence is either invoked in areas which it doesn't support (an apples and oranges situation), misinterpreted as a means of supporting a claim which does not logically follow, or exaggerated to the point where it supposedly supports the pseudo's claims. And that's if it's evidence at all, rather then just inflated rhetoric. As I said in my last post, i've no interest in debating Adrienne as she has already shown she's not interested in reasoned debate. But I felt the need to address more of her tangled posts for others who may be reading this blog. I shouldn't have to - Adrienne should be making her case with a well thought out example and discussion, rather than a mass factiod drop with the expectation that I sift through it all. As you can see, my posts end up 4 times longer than hers just because it takes so long to sift through all the minomers, misunderstandings, rhetoric, and logical fallacies. While any reply Keri, Maps, or myself put forward go totally unacknowledged and unaddressed. It's a dishonest was of debating someone and a very lazy way. Here's a definition of what I think Adrienne has been doing this whole time:

"Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called argumentum verbosium) that tries to persuade by overwhelming the reader or listener with such a volume of material that a proposition sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, or is so laborious to untangle and check that the proposition is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' statement, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.""

MAPS, EDWARD...Here's what 99% of the population think of your narrow minded, verbose, slanderous BS.....

Here's a definition of what I think you have been doing this whole time:

"Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called argumentum verbosium) that tries to persuade by overwhelming the reader or listener with such a volume of material that a proposition sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, or is so laborious to untangle and check that the proposition is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' statement, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.""

In other words save your breath for your BLOW UP DOLLS - You guys are so incredibly racist and NASTY. What goes around comes around..

I think it'd help the debate a bit if you stated your thesis clearly in a couple of paragraphs - if you just summed up what you are arguing for, in other words.

As things stand you are complaining about your argument being misrepresented by your critics, at the same time that Edward complains about you are making points which are actually tangential or irrelevant to your central argument.

I think if you summed up where you stand clearly then there would be a better basis for debate.

CHINESE CHALLENGE TO OUT OF AFRICA THEORYThe discovery of an early human fossil in southern China may challenge the commonly held idea that modern humans originated out of Africa.

Jin Changzhu and colleagues of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, announced to Chinese media last week that they have uncovered a 110,000-year-old putative Homo sapiens jawbone from a cave in southern China's Guangxi province.

The mandible has a protruding chin like that of Homo sapiens, but the thickness of the jaw is indicative of more primitive hominins, suggesting that the fossil could derive from interbreeding.

If confirmed, the finding would lend support to the "multiregional hypothesis". This says that modern humans descend from Homo sapiens coming out of Africa who then interbred with more primitive humans on other continents. In contrast, the prevailing "out of Africa" hypothesis holds that modern humans are the direct descendants of people who spread out of Africa to other continents around 100,000 years ago.

The study will appear in Chinese Science Bulletin later this month.

Out of China?"[This paper] acts to reject the theory that modern humans are of uniquely African origin and supports the notion that emerging African populations mixed with natives they encountered," says Milford Wolpoff, a proponent of the multiregional hypothesis at the University of Michigan.

Haikai Tane - now calling himself Hakai Taneh - is an Australian, who claims Koori descent - but was also claiming he was a Celtic Polynesian. He is best known for his work in permaculture - but has said that ANZ was settled by Chinese who did or inspired most of the rock art, especially that in the tunnels under Mount Cook...

"The Timaru Herald" and the letters columns of the Christchurch "Press" are the only MSM organs to allow him oxygen.

Edward asked for references, arhaeological finds and references. That is what I am providing to show1)Egyptians did have seafaring abilities.2) There is evidence of contact between ancient peoples routes from one end of the world to the other-both ways3) There are dna links between Americas/ Japan/ Polynesia.4) Asians& Proto Polynesians could have journeyed to many places.I think it is best just to provide the references themselves, as this stops personal attacks - such as being called a liar, dishonest, time travelling hyperdiffusionist, Baffling with bullshit etc.I prefer to let the research speak for itself. People can then make up their own minds, rather than get caught up in a war of Semantics.

Haplogroup B ( also found in Polyneisa) is also beling found in Sweden. Here is a reply posted on www.dnaforums.orgYou have to be a member to see it.

" I am too a haplogroup B and my direct maternal line is from Sweden. I have met Hap B's in Eastern europe and Spain, but you are the only other one I have met with a maternal Swedish line. As a matter of fact I had a huge discussion with FTDNA because they tried group me in their Amerind DNA forum, but I told them my direct maternal is Swedish and I even have documentation to prove it. I also wanted to say that I have spoken to a geneticist about the issue as my degree is anthropology and they had told me that Haplogroup B has been definitely seen in all over Eastern and Northern europe due to the Saami and the Mongolian settlements there. "

Use of Silk In Ancient Egypthttp://www.silk-road.com/artl/egyptsilk.shtml

by G.Lubec, J. Holaubek, C. Feldl, B. Lubec, E. Strouhal(Original print at NATURE, March 4, 1993) SIR -- On examing hair samples of mummies in the scanning electron microscope we found a piece of tissue between the curls which had the characteristic appearance of silk. To show that the specimen was silk, we performed infrared studies using multiple internal reflection, allowing nondestructive identification of the material. The spectra clearly identified silk.

We perfomred amino-acid anaylsis of the sample according to the method in ref. 2 and obtained the typical spectrum of hydrolysed silk, with high glycine, serine and alanine peaks as originally described by Shimura. To exclude the possibility that the silk specimen could have been added later to the mummy's hair we performed amino-acid racemization studies on the mummy's hydrolysed hair samples and on the hydrolysed silk specimen: proline racemization was used as the marker amino acid. We used an HPLC method for the separation of L and D forms.

The D/L racemization ratios from hair and silk were comparable, which excludes contamination of hair by the silk tissue in recent times. The mummy, a 30-50-year-old female, was found in Thebes, Deir el Medina, at the burial ground of the king's workmen. Based on anthropological data, the mummification method, the burial ground and amino-acid racemization, the mummy can be assigned to the twenty-first dynasty.

The silk industry had its origin in China and the material probably first reached the Mediterranean countries via Persia. Silk was not used in Egypt until later; the earliest example that can be traced is of Ptolemaic date from Mostagedda, a wollen tunic with decorative stripes with a weft of white silk. Lucan, writing in the middle of the first century, described Cleopatra with "her white breasts resplendent through the Sidonian fabric, which, wrought in close texture by the skill of the Seres, the needle of the workmen of the Nile has separated and has loosened the wrap by stretching out the web".

A portion of a coloured silk fabric was found at Qustul, south of Abu Simbel, the exact date of which is not certain, though it is probably not older than the fourth century AD. From the fourth century AD onwards silk became more common in Egypt. Our work suggests that silk was used in Egypt as long as 1,000 years BC, which would shed new light on ancient trading practices.

1) what does that have to do with anything?2) of course people migrated across the globe - how else do you suppose they got to the places they did? No one is arguing that.3) of course there are DNA links between Polynesia and Asia - where do you think original polynesian populations migrated from? No one is arguing that either. 4) of course Polynesians travelled places, how else do you suppose they got Kumara from S America? No one is arguing that either.

Wow, you have just completely missed the repeated times I clearly stated that no one was arguing against these points (with exception perhaps to no.1) - that they are in fact the current consensus and not 'controversial'. What I challenged was simply the idea that Maori or anyone else travelled around the globe willy nilly as the mood so took them and actually managed to travel back in time to a culture which predated them. All you did was act incredibly defensive and failed to listen to anything anyone else said. Give it a rest.

Maps said"Our species is only, at most, about 200,000 years old"The oldest bones they have found date to that time, that does not mean we did not exist before then.

Edward said"I think it's a bit of a long stretch to say that Maori travelled to egypt in prehistory. It's one thing to travel to countries bordering the Pacific for a people with good maritime skills, its another to hike all the way across continents from Japan to Egypt"

I am trying to explain how cultural concepts and ideas from people could have travelled to and from Polynesians and THEIR ANCESTORS. I have shown thatthere is some evidence that shows trading routes did exist- tobacco- cocaine, Silk. American maize.

I have shown that there is links- ( which are not beleived by you) with Polynesians and the Americas, physically- and through dna.

I have shown that Polynesians AND THEIR ANCESTORS may have travelled further distances along the Kelp Highway.

I did not say that Maori time travelled back to Egypt. I was showing that the proof of trade links and dna spread throughout areas, mainly through haplogroup B, could be be an explanation for myths and histories given by Maoris, and unbeleived by Europeans - such as that of Motuti, are stories handed down through their ANCESTRAL LINES/ DNA.

Thus my comment" The path of this dna alone shows that they were travellers. To have come such a long way."

Haplogroup B is spread throughout many areas- implying that these MAORI ANCESTORS, travelled far and wide.

KERI SAIDEgyptian sea voyages during Hapshephut's reign were within the Red Sea (that's where the barnacles came from - & they are controversial.) There is NO other uncontested evidence that Egyptians made long sea voyages

I was providing evidence that showed that they may have sailed the Meditteranean and the Indian ocean.

There *are* controversies about the Homonin/hominoid family tree - H. habilis & erectus*may* have left Africa earlier than we currently know, and as to where H. floresensis fits in...A'piths is my very amateurish guess-BUT

My understanding is that ATM humans have been around for *about* 200,000 thousand years BCE And that is not very long at all in evolutionary terms-

Keri said"And. given wallowy characteristics of the Eygptian boat, it very well may have taken some time to get there by sea."

I posted information regarding a reenactment voyage that proved the boats were very seaworthy.

Keri said"O Adrienne - it's pretty clear Ramirez is saying *Rapanui* is the source of much of the Mapuche material' " I posted his article to show there was research on CHile and Polynesians. There is not a clear division in DNA between Samoan, Hawaiian. Maori etc. Which is why as ancestors, they are included in the migrational journey.

Lisas lecture is not available online.

I am talking about research as to how the Maori arrived in NZ, where did they come from? Who were they before they got here?What in fluences might have been upon their culture. Not that current Maori went back in time. That was your assertion.

EDward said"But, to argue that Maori came from South America is to blatantly disregard the evidence you yourself just put forward: How can you cite that the DNA evidence points to a west-east migration."

Haplogroup B line of mutations does pass through South America to asia to Polynesia - So I posted evidence of this. I have also posted evidence that there many and multiple migrations- see rats, other dna groups. I am not saying ALL maori ANCESTORS came through that way- but that some- dna evidence proves - did.

Just as some went back the other way. It makes that if there is contact, the two peoples will merge/ intermarry.

Lisa said, Niue provided the chicken, Chile provided the Chips.

EDWARD SAID I specifically said Maori culture evolved from the Central East Polynesian settlers who founded NZ.

As for your DNA, I don't know, i'm not trained in that field, but my understanding is that Haplogroup B is found, in varying forms, all around the Pacific rim. "

My posts are to show, that HAp B, is actually found in a great deal more places than the pacific rim. Which suggests the movement- some historical- some within a similar time span of this lineage. As such you may expect to find influences upon the culture from these areas, not just from the place they are now. Especially when the ancestors,and oral histories were so important.EDWARD SAID"Tell me please, where this supports your claims of Egyptian global sea travel or Egyptian and Maori links"

I thus posted articles about how Egyptians had evidence of contact with the Americas. If the dna of the Maori ANCESTORS, are descended through here, then there is a possibility that their ancestors and how had contact of some sort, even if it was an exchange of ideas and goods.

I am not fixed at WHAT Time they occured,as my posts have shown different interactions with ASIA and Americas. If the Polynesian ANCESTORS came from Americas and Asia, if their dna is found as far flung as Sweden, then it is POSSIBLE, that a journey could have been undertaken- not necessarily by one person, but through generations.This knowledge passing down- resulting in similarities that people seek to explain in many ways such as celtic etc.

If Edward had posted in a more reasoned manner,rather than insulting me, in a rather egotistical and condescending manner, I may have felt reasoning was an option.I think people have a right to express themselves regarding their own ideas of their heritage- not just "Archaology" students.

I have kept posting, mainly in protest to Edwards bullying tone. I know my tipuna would approve.

First of all thank you for posting your outline. I still don't agree with you and think you're drawing conclusions which are unsuported, but that's ok. You're not going to change my mind and I don't think i'll be changing yours.

Secondly, go back and read my first few posts. I'm pretty sure i'm quite reasonable, and if the only thing you draw from the entirety of my posts is insult, then I don't know what to say other then you must not actually be absorbing what I was saying. I don't recall to many ad hominems from me. And i'm not sure how characterising your idea as hyper-diffusionism is insulting. You are arguing for an early and widespread diffusion of people and ideas across the globe - that's what hyper-diffusion is! Where's the insult?

And I never said expressing a different view was wrong! That's a lie. I explicitly said that traditions and archaeology were just different ways of looking at things! And you may think it egocentric, but I have just as much right as anyone else to put forward criticisms of something I don't think works in a scientific sense or to ask questions about it. Just becuase you hold a different view doesn't mean someone won't challenge you about it if it has major empirical flaws. And it's damned rude of you to assume I think it's only 'archaeology students' who have a right to comment about history - you know nothing about me or how much effort I put in to fighting the kind of racial intollerance which rears its head in this country. That's a real shit thing to say and not at all 'on par' with me saying your ideas are flawed. If you ask me, you're just overdefensive and can't handle someone challenging you in debate - you take a disagreement over the facts as personal insult. Apparently you genuinly do think you're infallible.

And you've kept posting because you never listen to anyone else but yourself, at least not on here. Demonize me all you like if it makes you feel better, but I haven't been bullying, just debating.

MAPS- I don't know how old the human race is. I once saw a programme on Nat Geo,they said all the ancient bones found ( they probably used a more defining term than that)- would fit in the back of a ute. Which climate changes, land shifts, natural disasters etc, it is amazing we have found any at all. I dont think anyone can say equivocally how old the human race is.

Perhaps I misconstrued these comments you made, However it is in my experience that when people say disclaimers such as

"Not to sound harsh", but I suggest this is becuase you have based your ideas on a muddled interpretation of DNA evidence alone."

It usually means that they know that it does sound harsh.

And further

"Please believe me when I say I have not meant to be harsh here or overly critical", but you have put forward many assertians which are either not backed up by any evidence or completely contradictory and illogical.

Then further

your hyper-diffusionist time-travelling ideas."You forgot the timetravelling piece. Yet if knowledge passes through generations, then it is travelling through time- isnt it.So maybe it is correct. Just as your grandfathers life would have had an impact on yours, even if you havent met him, as he still touched your families life.

Then you say"And very dishonest."

Then further"I really, honestly, am not trying to be mean, but I don't think you know what you are talking about."

Then furtherAnyway, It probably sounds stupid in light of the above, but I really am not trying to get at you personally. I just have huge, huge problems with many of your claims with regards to human history.

And furtherI really, honestly, am not trying to be mean, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

and further another type of disclaimer"I would not wish to take anything away from traditions, but i'm afraid traditions do not prove anything generally "

and further onyour nonsense is nevertheless on a par with his ramblings. I find your claims that genuine scholars in NZ agree with you quite insulting and a base lie.

and furtherIt's a dishonest was of debating someone and a very lazy way. Here's a definition of what I think Adrienne has been doing this whole time: followed by the baffle with bull line.

and furtherand furtherOh for goodness sake. Talk about missing the point

and then you wonder why later"All you did was act incredibly defensive and failed to listen to anything anyone else said. Give it a rest."

Your final post started off rather reasonably, but once again descended to

"If you ask me, you're just overdefensive and can't handle someone challenging you in debate - you take a disagreement over the facts as personal insult. Apparently you genuinly do think you're infallible.

And you've kept posting because you never listen to anyone else but yourself, at least not on here. Demonize me all you like if it makes you feel better, but I haven't been bullying, just debating"

I ask again, do you not realise they way you talk to people is not very nice, and may affect the way they respond to you in debate?

Edward is an archaeologist. Maps is a scholar, a tried academic, as is HORansome. Various people who post here have their areas of expertise, academically-acquired/tested -or not.But we stand openly by our viewpoints.

I left various- well, 2 - archaeology groups after they were invaded by hyperdiffusionists (anyone here remember the infamous Kuchinsky?) Because the discussion left archaeological topics and slithered intowhat I can only call woowoo territory. Shamanism. Other dimensions. Secret knowledge. Hidden histories.

Maybe - if you want credibility in this forum Adrienne - you could say who you are? Because you've begun to sound alarmingly like someone I know from another much-less-esteemed blog-

I'm not an expert on DNA, Adrienne, I just rely on the scholarly consensus, and, like Edward and Keri, I just can't relate what you are saying to anything I've heard from experts on the subject.

My understanding is that scholars working in the subject believe South American links have been disproved definitively by a series of studies, including the 2005 Taiwanese-Estonian study which traced Polynesians and pre-Polynesians back to Taiwan or thereabouts 5,000 years ago. The study reported finding three genetic mutations which were shared only by Polynesians, Melnesians, and aboriginal Taiwanese.

What do you think about that study? Presumably you think it was in some important way flawed? I found this summary of the 2005 article which reported the results of the study, and I'd be interested to see your response to it:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1166355

You seem to be suggesting that Egyptians, or people from therebaouts, travelled to South America in ancient times. Again, experts seem agreed that DNA evidence disproves ratherthan proves this sort of claim.

I read a fascinating book last year on how DNA tests have caused even many Mormons to drop their claims that native Americans and (via the Americas) Polynesians are descendants of Middle Eastern peoples. It's called Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church and it's written by George Southwell. If even the Mormons are giving up on the idea of prehistoric links between the Midle East and South America and Polynesia, then the idea looks bad.

Like Edward, I suspect you of mistakenly assuming that the remote genetic link that Polynesians have with South Americans through their common origins in Asia is evidence of a more recent link. I suspect that you've found a 'connection' with Sweden through the same mistake.

It surprises me that you haven't mentioned the strong evidence that has emerged recently for ancient contact between the Chumash people of California and Polynesians:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/20/MNG9GDBBLG1.DTL

I think that this case actually provides evidence for the idea that Polynesian contact with the Americas was fairly marginal, and came as a result of eastern Polynesians pushing further east and hitting the coast. The reason that scholars suspected that Chumash might have been influenced by Polynesians is that their aquatechnology and their language are quite different from those of surrounding indigenous groups.

If the Polynesians were all over the Americas, why didn't other indigenous peoples get better boats? The things that Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific were both radically different from and pretty poor in comparison to Polynesian aquatechnology.

I do think it is mistaken to keep citing Lisa Matisoo-Smith's work as evidence that some Polynesians emigrated to the Pacific from South America, as she quite explicitly says that the people who gave the Mapuche chooks in all likelihood came east, from eastern Polynesia. Here is a short interview I found online where she explains her conclusions:http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1943701.htm

Whilst I agree with you that we can't be too precise about the time of human origins, given the relative paucity of material evidence and the many sites yet to be excavated, surely you'd agree that talk of the human species being millions, let alone 70 million years old, as one of the anonymous commenters here claimed, can be ruled out? Such a timescale would make homo spaiens older than the species it evolved from! Ardi, which was a very distant ancestor, is only four and a half million years old!

It's good of you to go through and revisit my posts. Perhaps I am blind, because I honestly don't think that any of what I said was overly insulting on a personal level. The worst one appears to be me comparing your ideas to Doutre's, which I still hold to. I think I was being reasoned and I was trying to be restrained. As I said time and again, I just have problems with many of your claims - I don't think they amount to solid arguments. If you find that insulting, well, there's nothing I can do about it. If you or anyone else put outrageous claims out there, well i'm going to debate them. Simple as that. As for the 'baffle with bull' line, I don't know if you noticed, but that was quoted straight out of a wikipedia definition to which I pasted the link for you. It wasn't actually my own statement. And i'm still wondering why you've been so defensive. I honestly don't get it. I'm not trying to cause offense, i'm just debating your ideas which apparently i'm not allowed to do according to you. And with regard to your last question, no, i'm not aware I sound so horrible. But that's becuase I don't think I do. I just think i'm straight forward. Perhaps i'm not as tactful as you would like, but that shouldn't really take away from the content of my posts or my points which you ignored. As I said, you're welcome to demonize me if you wish, but we're obviously not going to agree.

Okay, so what seems to be the problem here, is that the conception that is a Maori ancestress is of SOuth American origins, she is not Maori? That Polynesians only came from Polynesia. Regardless if one of these Polynesians took a wife from the Americas and returned with her to Polynesia. Does this mean her culture and histories are not part of the people that result?I did mention the Chumash actually.

Was the study you mentioned for men? was it ydna or mtna?Because yes the Ydna does show that. Dna can only show the direct line. I,e ydna only shows the fathers, fathers, fathers, fathers etc. So if a mans ancestor married a woman from another culture, it will not show up in his dna. MTNA only shows a womans, mothers, mothers, mothers, mothers etc. So if an ancestress married a man from another culture, his dna will not show up.

I have been assimilating my interactions with you all, and am wondering at the irony of it.

The original story was blasting Martin Doutre. Your comments say that you think his works are harmful to the Maori.

Yet in my posts, I have sought to provide support to traditional Maori beleifs. Such as the history that they are descended from Tane, who came from Papatuanuku and Rangi. That Maori did see and experience other realities such as Patupairuhe and Turehu. This has been dismissed as WOOWOO.

By showing people may be older than 200,000 years.

The Maori prophets such as Te Kooti, Te Whiti from Parihaka, Te Maiharoa, and others spoke of links with ancient people of the bible. Which is why, I posted about the book Mana from Heaven. And why I suggested links that may give a possibility for some kind of cultural/ religous/ancestral knowledge exchange from that area and time to this.

I have sough to defend that Motuti history of ancestral lines from South America.You say this is simply not true or possible. Despite my attempts to explain how dna research works.

I spoke of Cave city and eagles nest- to show how ancient people interact with ancestors.You attack the reputation of Pat Ruja. I am not sure if it the same person? The man I met is a respected Tohunga and Kaumatua of the Nga Puhi. his iwi links to Hokianga and Taranaki. He works to help Maori that are "At risk".

Lastly I want to thank you especially Edward.As you have provided me with invaluable insights. I work providing support to people who hear voices and have visions and are distressed by them. Many of them are Maori locked in institutions and labelled as schizophrenic.

I know the difficulty for many people to understand how others can experience such things, when they have never done so. How easy it is to call it woo woo etc.

Many of these people have the same experiences their ancestors had. Part of my work is helping them to understand these experiences in a positive way.

I could not understand why so many see and hear "Western" demons, voices that tell them they are liars, dishonest, making things up, stupid, mad. Now I do.

What they are experiencing is the negative criticism of "who they are". Of their iwi's beleifs, of their peoples customs, of their cultural experiences. Dismissed as primitive imaginings. Impossible histories.

If you are familiar with the concept of Universal consciousnessyou will understand the idea- JUngian, that some people tap into this Space.

Which is why it is important for me to work to validate the culture and beliefs that I hold dear. As the dismissal of them is harming the Maori peoples spirits.

I would like to suggest watching the Rain of the Children- a film by Vincent Ward, which highlights how this has happened beautifully.

You can see some of the work I do at www.hearingvoices.org.nz. We are a charity helping people who hear voices.There are some great articles from cultural perspectives. And Edward I would like to recommend the book"The search for Om Sety" By Jonathan Cott. About an amazing woman who worked in Egypt in famous digs.

Once again I would like to thank all of you.It really has been and insightful experience. I do mean that- honestly.

Well I do hope something positive has come out of this, and not just ill feeling. I admit I have no experience and can't really relate to the spiritual side of what you speak of. My perceptions of what you have put forward are based soley on an empiricist philosophy, and that is why I addressed some of your posts initially in the same way I would Doutre's. But on a political and cultural level, I can tell the difference if that makes sense. I only disagreed with your evidence, whereas with Doutre et al. it's his evidence as well as his political motivations which need to be confronted. It is perhaps noble of you to wish to work towards making a holistic approach to Maori traditions and other evidence. It is just my opinion that the two are different in the same way other systems of belief are different from evidence. Not to say science/scholarship are more important than traditions or the other way around - just that they represent different ways of seeing the world if you know what I mean?Anyway, good luck I guess. And thanks for the recommendation.

Surely it was nineteenth century Pakeha who insisted on treating legends as literal histories, Adrienne - isn't that how we wound up with the Great Fleet Myth?

I know Mana from Heaven and also Bronwyn Elsmore's work on the New Moon movement in Hawkes Bay.

Elsmore doesn't ask her readers to believe in all the claims made by the prophets and prophetesses and their followers - she interprets those claims in terms of their social and political function.

Thus she suggests that the Maori identification with the Jews of the Old Testament was based on the parrallels between Maori experience and the Jewish experience of dispossession and exile.

Redemption Songs, Judith Binney's biography of Te Kooti, is a great example of how a scholar can be attentive to oral history without taking it literally. She notes how different regions have different, and often fantastic stories about Te Kooti, and interprets these stories in terms of the meaning the groups telling them wanted to get across.

Maps, I am aware that Bronwyn presented her work in that manner.I am unsure which is more harmful, a literal interpretation or disbelief altogether.

That is the interesting question. Were the visions created by1) genuine spiritual guidance received2) physical events that were happening at the time3) forgotten ancestral knowledge that was triggered by similar events.4) or all of the above.Edward, Thank you for your last post.

I cant resist posting this, I saw it on the email I get from Archaeology.org.

The excavation of a Late Bronze Age (LBA) cargo vessel off southern Turkey's Cape Gelidonya in 1960 was the world's first scientific underwater dig. Led by pioneering underwater archaeologist George Bass, a team of young divers discovered a rich cargo that contained primarily copper and tin ingots, as well as the personal possessions of the crew, which showed they came from Egypt, Cyprus, and Syria. Based on comparing evidence from Egyptian art, Syrian port excavations, and the artifacts of the vessel, the archaeologists concluded the ship was early Phoenician. At the time of the discovery, scholars believed the Myceneans dominated the LBA nautical trade, and that the Phoenicians were not present on the seas until the Iron Age. The Cape Gelidonya wreck forced archaeologists to reconsider the history of nautical commerce in the LBA Mediterranean.

sorry- I just think the fact that history keeps changing is fascinating. I will leave you all to get back to your latest blogs. I am sure I have exhausted the comment limit on this one.

I don't believe that Te Kooti really rode his horse up a sheer cliff or that Te Maiharoa actually lifted a train off its tracks, Adrienne. It seems to me that stories like these have to be understood metaphorically, in the ame way that we might understand the story of Job or the travels of Ullysses.

MAPSI have only just managed to look at the links on DNA testing you provided. ALl are excellent. Thanks for the links I have shared them with my dna matches in my group.

I read the Taiwan study in its entirety. It was fascinating. I note however that it confirms what I said about Polynesian ydna- mens lines not showing in Taiwan :here"Considering the lack of a common specific Y chromosomal element shared by the Taiwanese aboriginals and Polynesians, the mtDNA evidence provided here is also consistent with the suggestion that the proto-Oceanic societies would have been mainly matrilocal. " and here:

"High frequency of a tagging mitochondrial haplotype in contrast to the absence of such in the Y chromosomes of Polynesians and Taiwanese might lend credence to the suggestion that the proto-Austronesian communities were matriarchal [58] and matrilocal (as the Amis tribe still is in Taiwan) whereby the Y chromosome pool of the initial migrants was lost after being repeatedly diluted on the way toward Polynesia.

Which is what I was saying- the mtna appears to have an asian origin, but not so much the Y- which is the Male dna.

This section here "In particular, Taiwanese aboriginal populations appeared closer to island Southeast Asian populations (Luzon, Philippines, Moluccas, and Indonesia) than to populations from mainland East Asia (Fujian, South Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand)."

is consistant with my dna matches, which links with Phillipines and Indonesia ( however havent any Taiwanese matches)

This section here shows the links of the B haplogroup in Japan:

"Similarly, among Japanese, haplogroup B4a1 is represented by three different subclades that appear as sister groups to the Taiwanese/Polynesian-specific clade B4a1a.

IT says here that the preceding ancestral mtna is found in EAST ASIA which shows the ancestors may have moved from there:

"However, the specific HVS-I motif associated with Polynesian expansion occurs only in Near and Remote Oceania whereas its immediate ancestral sequence is common throughout East Asia and has a coalescence time significantly predating the Polynesian migration [21]."

Also the conclusion states:"Taiwanese aboriginal populations share their maternal ancestry with populations of mainland East Asia through haplogroups B, R9, and M7"

My mtna ( which contains Maori and Hawaiians, is the preceding mutation to the next group- which at this stage contains only POlynesian.-) It all depends on the samples you use I suppose.So few have been given.This shows the female ancestors did have links with these other areas as per my posts.

RE Lisa Matissoo Smiths post.It does not say they came from Rapanui. It says that they sailed beyond Easter Island.

"So we said sure, and they sent us the bones and we found that they had an identical sequence to chicken bones that date to about 2,000 years ago from Tonga, and some slightly later chicken bones from Samoa, and then they had similar sequences to chicken bones from sites in Niue, Easter Island and Hawaii.

So we concluded that indeed, they did look like they were Polynesian chickens, and then we had that bone also radiocarbon dated, directly dated, but then the date came back to between 1300 and 1400 AD, so clearly pre-European.

PETER LEWIS: She says while that may ruffle some Eurocentric feathers, the carbon-dated chicken bones are the strongest evidence yet about the extent of those epic Polynesian voyages.

LISA MATISOO-SMITH: So the result shows that Polynesians probably continued sailing eastwards, beyond Easter Island and reached the shores of South America and introduced the chicken to South America before the Europeans brought them about 100 years later."

Re Chumash- All you need is one of these people to return to Polynesia for their story to be added to the ancestral stories. Especially if they had lots of children.

"Until now, few scientists have dared to speculate that the ancientPolynesians visited Southern California between 500 and 700 A.D., that isto say, in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. This is knownas the "transpacific diffusion" hypothesis."The dominant paradigm in American archaeology for the past 60 or moreyears has been anti-diffusionist, and our findings are already stimulating a rethinking of that paradigm," Klar told The Chronicle.Falling out of favorThe idea that ancient North America might have received visitors from thePacific islands and Asia has had few friends in modern times. The idea was popular among researchers in the 19th century, but fell out of scholarly favor in the 20th.[ I'll say it has!!]

Schizophrenia is a name for a family of mental illnesses- some symptoms include seeing people/things that are not real (I direct you to a lovely film "A Beautiful Mind"): it has a strong genetic input, and has (for nearly 2 decades)been known to be precipitated by the use of recreational drugs - cannabis included.

It is not disbelief in woowoo -and 'Universal Consiousness' is woowoo- that ;is 'making our people sick'(I note your original post has been edited)- it is our genes AND our use of drugs.

I'm Maori & Pakeha: I test everything I think I know, everything I learn. I'm also a poet, a fantasist, a kaipurakau. a storyteller.

I work in the interstices of the human consciousness (and I studied, formally & informally, religion for 35 years.) I do not confuse my work with science.

`History: Fiction or Science?` is the most explosive tractate on history and chronology ever written.

This book is not another conspiracy theory - every hypothesis it contains is backed by solid scientific data.

The book is well-illustrated, contains 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays.

You will be amazed to discover: - That the chronology universally taken for granted is indeed wrong; - That this chronology was essentially invented in the XVI-XVII century; - That archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts known today are erroneous or non-exact; - That there is not a single document that could be reliably dated earlier than the XIth century; - That Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy; - That Jesus Christ may have been born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD; - That the Old Testament is probably a rendition of Middle Ages events; - That the Old Europe is not as ancient as it claims.

Henry Ford once said: "History is more or less bunk". Leading Mathematician Anatoly Fomenko proved it.

KeriThere is no physical test that can be done to prove Schizophrenia.There is no chemical test that can be done to show an imbalance.There is no gene identified that is a schizophrenic gene.

However it is a great way to convince people they need medication for the rest of the loves and that they will be sick forever.

Some experiences can only be lived , the explanation of them is not the same thing, neither is the study of them. Either you have experienced visions and voices or you havent. To explain what it is like to one who hasnt, can be done, but cannot be felt.

You say I am confusing science. I tend to look instead at a human , and beleive them when they tell me how it is for them.

Professor John Read of Auckland University has written some great research on hearing voices.

Because you have not personally experienced another reality, does not mean they do not exist. Just that you have not seen them.

Adrienne- au contraire- there are identified geneticmarkers for the schizophrenic cohort of mental illnesses (obviously there is no such thing as 'the schizophrenic gene')- and there are now tests that can indicate the kind of chemical imbalances that occur when people show signs of schizophrenic behaviour.

My nextdoor neighbour - and friend - for over 35 years- has a family member seemingly incurably ill with schizophrenia. I've watched that child grow from a lively intelligent radiant person into - a non-functioning adult. And I've watched- and aided where I can- my friend's family become so involved with SF and other mental health carers' groups, majorly within the mental system (including Maori health groups.)And I've watched their very evocative films & presentations about what their genetically-wounded family member experiences (which is why I directed you to a commercial film 'A Beautiful Mind.'.

I don't want to get into another debate with Adrienne, but I would like to say that I think she needs to be cautious about throwing arguments around about disciplines she has no expertise in. So far we have heard Adrienne speak of archaeology, history, genetics, and now, most recently, psychology.

As an archaeologist I challenged your assertions about the archaeological side of things.Maps and Keri also challenged some of your assertions about archaeology, history, and genetics.Now it seems your latest arguments have moved on to psychology. My partner is a psychologist, and I think she would have issues with your claims about schizophrenia.

I guess what i'm saying is that you're welcome to think what you like, and talk about some ideas or possible evidence, but you cannot talk authoritively about any of these disciplines as you are not an epistomological authority (i.e. a trained expert) in these areas. I asked if you were an actual geneticist but you didn't reply so I assume no. I find it telling when people start claiming expert knowledge in a number of different fields, in a way claiming some sort of 'multi-disciplinary' expertise. Modern scholarship works in such a way that everyone has their own specialisation - there is just too much info for one person to be an expert in everything - and so relies upon and works with other experts from different fields (for example archaeologists might work in with biological anthropologists, paleobotanists, social anthropologists etc. etc.)

What I cannot stomach is the idea that you are such a multi-disciplinary expert. It is important to understand the limits of one's own knowledge - I know very keenly that I don't know what i'm talking about when it comes to physics, psychology, and most other areas (I have a very basic understanding of a few other areas outside of archaeology, but not enough to claim expertise by any means). My opinion is that if you want to argue a point about something like, say DNA or schizophrenia, then fine. But to try and argue that the people who are actually trained in these areas are all wrong, and that basically, all of the cross-disciplinary work done over past decades should be thrown aside in light of your untrained opinion, is, I would argue, a wee bit over the top and unjustified. At the end of the day you are not an epistomological authority so I think you should stop claiming too be.

That's all I wanted to say. Feel free to continue with your discussion if you wish, but I just wanted to try and help you steer clear of an appeal to authority which does nothing for your arguments.

Keri,I would love to hear about the physical test that can be done to show a chemical imbalance in schizophrenia as no-one I know of has ever had one done? Is it a blood test? Can you direct me to more info on it.I watched the documentary shown by ISPS at the Auckland University recently during mental health awareness week called "On broken wings" which clearly dispelled the chemical imbalance myth.I am the secretary of the "Hearing Voices Newtork" and run support groups for people who hear voices. Have done for three years now. Sorry if that does not make me "qualified". I know of SF, I have given a talk to their North Shore group. There is not really the space to debate this here, if you wanted to continue the debate, please join the forum on our website. www.hearingvoices.org.nz Bring up the chemical imbalance thing- there is much more room there, and it is more appropriate than the end of a blog.

Edward,It just happened that you are talking about two subjects of great interest to me. I have been reading everything I can about DNA testing for years now since I had my own dna tested. No I am not a geneticist. Yet I was trying to share some of the fascinating research I have collected.If you only wanted to hear from geneticists, then please forgive me for intruding here.The information I have provided was from reputable sources . Were they not to your liking? My husband and I both love archaeology and went to egypt two years ago to visit all the tombs and temples. Fabulous.I met many of my dna matches in AMerica and we share any articles we can find on dna testing and migration of hap B.

Ask your partner about the physical chemical test for Schizophrenia and see what she says. Once again there is not the space here to debate at length, however we welcome posts on our HVN forum- is just new.

Keri- tell your friends about our site. The wellington branch of SF is publishing an article I wrote for friends and whanau in their next newsletter. But it is on our site too. I wish you could hear Egan Bidois talk. He was diagnosed as an untreatable Schizophrenic and now works as a Maori cultural advisor in mental health.He has an article there too.

Oh, and I didn't mean at all to sound like you couldn't or shouldn't talk about such things - they are interesting (i'm not a shrink but I love hearing about psych stuff, as I do with hearing about genetics) so i'm sorry if I came across like I was telling you what you can and can't talk about. All I was really saying was that I thought you should be cautious about thinking you might know the ins and outs of a discipline you may not have training in so-to-speak (i've been caught in the past thinking I knew something particular about a discipline which turned out to be wrong or misinterpreted). It happens, and that's why we rely upon experts as epistomological authorities.

Anyway, I probably sounded harsher then I meant perhaps. And while I do indeed perfer to hear about genetics from geneticists, i've no issue with you voicing your opinion. As for your info, all I can say is that, as with some of the archy stuff, we will have to agree to disagree. I perfer empirical evidence and sound hypotheses to the spiritual side of things, but that's ok. Each to their own. Anyway, your trip to Egypt sounds great - i've colleagues over in the Faiyum at the moment as part of an ongoing archy programme looking at neolithic subsistance.

Oh and i'll ask my partner - my understanding (based on what she's told me) is that the disorder still needs a lot more research done on it, but that there are very obvious and clear symptoms in behaviour and cognitive activity which can in fact be observed in an empirical sense. Also of note (and I think i've got this right if my memory serves me correctly - i'm no expert) is that Schizophrenia nearly always goes hand in hand with a variety of other disorders, and that there is a spectrum of serverity across populations (i.e. not everyone gets it exactly the same). I don't know about the people you work with, but I've heard of cases where individuals with it become worse off when their delusions (if they suffer them - not all do) are fed by spiritual rhetoric (i.e. a family member of mine and other cases i've heard of where the person has gone pretty nut bar when ideas about demons and angels etc. were encouraged).

Anyway, that's another story. And I can hear my thesis beckoning me again.

Thanks for that Adrienne.Yes, the new Journal is replacing the old 'Archaeology in NZ' quarterly journal which they announced at the conference this year.The paper sounds interesting. One excellent book which I recommend to you and anyone else reading for a general feel of where research in NZ and the Pacific is, is 'Change Through Time' (2004), NZAA monograph 26 (sells for about $60 I think - might be cheaper if you're a member Adrienne?). It's getting slightly old now but is a wonderful text. Matisoo-Smith gives a brief but excellent account of the development of bio anthro in NZ and the Pacific up to the present. Might be good for contextualisation.

I have been reading and looking for Mykeljon picks another loser and is amazing and disturbing how many blogs related to generic viagra are in the web. But anyways, thanks for sharing your inputs, they are really useful and helpful.Have a nice day

Just read through the whole lot. So basically are you saying that the claims of Pre-Maori, the supposed Patupaiarehe, are false? I am of no opinion on this matter. Just wondering where you stand. I read Mykeljon's article and was amazed by it and believed it. I guess because I wanted to. How fantastic would that be!

I've lived close to te Waiariki in Panguru, and developed a very close relationship with some of the elders. The Tibetan connection is interesting. For the most part te Waiariki say the genealogies are not remembered. But they may just keep them close to their chests.

They are open about the story that their waka was called Waitaha, and there is a place there where it landed that's named after it. It's always had that name.

I can give you a story that was told to me first hand by its witness, a Waiariki. When a bunch of Tibetan monks went into the forest a few years ago to do what he called their karakia (chanting), one of the monks told him that his people from a long time ago built their temple at Kaimanawa, in I think the central north island. There are apparently stone structure remains there (Kaimanawa Wall). Anyway those Tibetan monks said it was theirs, according to this Waiariki. I have no reason to doubt his word.

I know there are stone structures elsewhere in the north island. I've heard Maoris talking about them, always saying they are tapu places. I've never been to one, but I've seen what are certainly non-natural structures on aerial photographs after I was pointed in the right direction. A group of structures in one location. I actually hesitate to say they're man-made, because there are mythological stories around there about superhuman beings, and again I respect the storytellers.

Whatever made these structures anyway, they are extraordinary - very long, dead-straight lines travelling hundreds of metres in parallel. What looks like some kind of writing similar to runes or some indo-european script, with characters 100m high. And in the thick of it all - with nothing less than a track going through the middle of it - something that looks like a temple, with a large circular enclosure or auditorium, and a bunch of smaller enclosures by it.

These structures are made of stone according to the locals, and they certainly look that way, because they look very old indeed.

All you can see in fact on the satellite is the way the vegetation has grown differently, or not been cleared effectively, and it's through these altered tones that the shapes stand out.

There is potential for many other similar structures in the area but they will be under forest. I reiterate however that the locals know where they are and either keep themselves and others clear, or in some cases they will actually take people to those places.

In regards to the images I've seen, it's indisputable that these structures were NOT made by Polynesians, unless they were doing things the history books say they weren't. These are intricate, large-scale building projects that seem to use stone, and seem to have been done a very long time ago (sections of the long parallel lines are actually below ground level, though I don't know how raised the rest are).

They are also in a section of cleared forest that is an old forest... and presumably had to be cleared to build and appreciate the things in the first place. So the area's been cleared before... yet it's old growth. Go figure.

I'll say they probably were made by local Maori ancestors in a period pre-1300 AD. This is because the locals do kind of claim them as their own in some cases. And the same locals say their blood is mixed between polynesian and other blood that is pre-polynesian, between 2000 and 4000 years in this country. Also, to be honest the only people who seem to be outraged by this idea are white people. The hapus who tell these stories beleive them,and those that listen respect their peers' ancestries they're hearing about.

I'd be happy to share the images with whoever wishes to see them. At the moment I'd keep the location to myself. This is simply because the places need to be respected, and some of these posts reveal a degree of lack of respect. The locals for this particular place also do not allow visitors to go there - there is a rahui on it (albeit with a track going through the place).

But there is more to this. If you go into tapu places without respect, you end up getting hooked up with energies or whatever you wanna call them that frankly yeah don't have the right words in the western lexicon. Kind of like fast karma on steroids. I know this from experience. Maori have tapu places and tapu people, and yes, they can as someone said above read your mind. I know, because it happened to me, after I ended up in what you might called a charged state after being in tapu places (with much respect - the alternative was fear and death, it seemed).

So I'll just leave it at this - some of the old people have knowledge that is so far out of the ballpark of western science and spirituality, that they frankly won't remotely admit to it until the mind of the person they might admit it to is open and respectful. And then they will communicate it in ways that in the west, we didn't realise possible, until that moment. Which is the whole point.

This being the case, and with these mythologies relating to or coming from extremely tapu peoples - and they come no more tapu than Waitaha and Waiariki, just the names speak to their depth of understanding - well you know I'd really honestly counsel some of you guys to take a more open and respectful and less egotistical view on this stuff. Especially if you want to go looking around in the forests. Maoris have stories of fairies scrambling your mind, don't you know... meet one in a forest and you're up there for 20 years, and come out white as a sheet rambling incoherently ;-)

Finally, if these stories do inspire you, let them. They can open you up to wonderful things and wonderful people.